Slashdot Mirror
Who Owns Baseball Statistics?
Class Act Dynamo writes "A sports fantasy league company has asked a federal court to decided whether baseball statistics belong in the public domain as history or are the property of major league baseball. Basically, they had been licensing the statistics for nine cents (US) per gross from the Major League Baseball Players Association. But MLB recently bought the rights to be the sole licensor and has refused to renew the license of the fantasy league company. From the article: 'Major League Baseball has claimed that intellectual property law makes it illegal for fantasy league operators to commercially exploit the identities and statistical profiles of big league players.' What does the Slashdot community think? Shoud Barry Bonds' record 73 single season homeruns be in the public domain, or should I worry about having to pay royalties for the first part of this compound sentence?"
The article says NINE PERCENT OF GROSS (9%), while the blurb says NINE CENTS PER GROSS ($0.000625 each). Big difference there, unless the blurb got that figure from somewhere not in the article.
-- I prefer the term "karma escort."
This will probably offend all the MLB fans out there, but I really just don't care. These guys are already over paid. Attendance is down because the ticket prices and concession prices, which the teams get a cut of, are already far too high. I don't know about where you live, but it's $5 for a dixie cup full of beer here on top of a $45 ticket. That's a bit too steep. Add in a couple of kids, some hotdogs and some cokes, and you can easily spend $300 for crappy seats at the Baseball game. Now they want to try to wring more money out of the fantasy baseball leageues? These guys are going to corporate themselves to death. The new national sport will be soccer soon until the soccer players become overpaid, whiny, wimps too.
2 cents,
Queen B
HDGary secures my bank
Aren't there precedents with phonebooks and such that while a particular presentation of facts can be copyrighted, the facts themselves cannot? If that is the case, what is the MLB's lawyer thinking when he advised the go-ahead on the exclusive license and refusal to let fantasy league operators use the stats at a price? Or are they using an alternative definition of "Intellectual Property" that I am not aware of?
Are they seriously trying to argue that records that a player set, as well as numbers calculated from the tabulated performance of an athelete are not facts? I seriously fail to see why MLB thinks that it has any ground here. Though, to be fair, TFA didn't give much insight to the MLB's argument since
Engineers also speak PDE, only in a different dialect.
MLB Player Batting Statistics for 2005
.335 .418 .662 1.080 .331 .383 .447 .830 .331 .385 .513 .899 .330 .430 .609 1.039 .323 .385 .561 .947 .321 .421 .610 1.031 .320 .445 .534 .979 .317 .394 .565 .959 .316 .366 .439 .805 .314 .387 .515 .903 .312 .371 .423 .795 .309 .389 .450 .839 .308 .359 .553 .911 .307 .361 .505 .866 .306 .360 .499 .859 .306 .388 .523 .912 .306 .372 .426 .798 .306 .402 .559 .961 .305 .378 .475 .853 .305 .367 .496 .863
RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
1 Derrek Lee ChC 594 120 199 50 3 46 107 15 3 85
2 Placido Polanco Det 501 84 166 27 2 9 56 4 3 33
3 Michael Young Tex 668 114 221 40 5 24 91 5 2 58
4 Albert Pujols StL 591 129 195 38 2 41 117 16 2 97
5 Miguel Cabrera Fla 613 106 198 43 2 33 116 1 0 64
6 Alex Rodriguez NYY 605 124 194 29 1 48 130 21 6 91
7 Todd Helton Col 509 92 163 45 2 20 79 3 0 106
8 Vladimir Guerrero LAA 520 95 165 29 2 32 108 13 1 61
9 Johnny Damon Bos 624 117 197 35 6 10 75 18 1 53
10 Brian Roberts Bal 561 92 176 45 7 18 73 27 10 67
RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
11 Sean Casey Cin 529 75 165 32 0 9 58 2 0 48
12 Derek Jeter NYY 654 122 202 25 5 19 70 14 5 77
13 Chad Tracy Ari 503 73 155 34 4 27 72 3 1 35
14 Matt Holliday Col 479 68 147 24 7 19 87 14 3 36
15 Randy Winn Sea 617 85 189 47 6 20 63 19 11 48
16 David Wright NYM 575 99 176 42 1 27 102 17 7 72
17 Brady Clark Mil 599 94 183 31 1 13 53 10 13 47
Jason Bay Pit 599 110 183 44 6 32 101 21 1 95
19 Victor Martinez Cle 547 73 167 33 0 20 80 0 1 63
20 Hideki Matsui NYY 629 108 192 45 3 23 116 2 2 63
RK PLAYER TEAM AB R H 2B 3B HR RBI SB CS BB BA OBP SLG OPS
21 Travis Hafner Cle 486 94 148 42 0 33 108 0 0 79
Facts and figures cannot themselves be protected by copyright (though the selection and presentation of them can, in a very limited form). That was established pretty unambiguously in Feist Publications, Inc. v. Rural Telephone Service Co., 499 U.S. 340 (1991).
http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?There may be some protection under the 'hot news' doctrine (International News Service v. Associated Press, 248 U.S. 215 (1918) http://caselaw.lp.findlaw.com/scripts/getcase.pl?c ourt=US&vol=248&invol=215 ), but I'm pretty sure modern courts would follow the reasoning of the 2nd Circuit (though not binding on non-2nd Circuit courts, unlike the Supreme Court opinions cited above, which are binding on all U.S. courts) in National Basketball Association v. Motorola, Inc., 105 F.3d 841 (2d Cir. 1997) http://www.law.cornell.edu/copyright/cases/105_F3d _841.htm ...
In summary, MLB can shove it, IM(ns)HO.
geek. lawyer.
It is my understanding that the relevant codes in the United States copyright laws formally define what is meant by creative work and what may be protected by copyright as any original creation of authorship in a tangible medium, although the law has been amended to include certain creative works, including computer software, which are not tangible in the traditional sense of the word. However, it would be quite a stretch to interpret the gathering of raw statistics, baseball statistics in this instance, as a creative work. If there is some other work created based upon these statistics, such as the formulation of a thesis or comparison, which is then written up in an article or paper and published then that would more readily, depending upon the content, fall under the definition of a creative work. In the practical sense it is perfectly reasonable for major league baseball, or indeed any other information broker, to gather and maintain a database of these statistics and charge whatever they wish for factual reports of this information. It seems to me that the statistics themselves, especially when presented outside the context of the game in which they originally occurred as part of broader comparisons, are not protected by copyright and therefore anyone who wants to sell such information is not impeded by copyright laws.
Note: I am not a lawyer and I do not mean for this to be taken as legal advice. It is merely the opinion of a private citizen and is presented as-is.
Nah... The US Govt cannot copyright documents. (It is *supposed* to be working for the public, remember?)
But with recent events, it can simply mark unfavorable data as being "national security" issue and choose to not make it available.
When you have some free time, try obtaining a copy of the TSA regulations for travel on flights (like the requirement of showing license/passport identification)... Some of these laws (that all passengers must follow) are not publicly available!!!
That's right... We are required to follow unpublished regulations whose text we may not view.
I haven't read 1984 yet. Perhaps I should -- while I still can.
I recall that the NBA was suing companies that were sending out the scores of games over some wireless pager or cells phones. I guess this means that you can pay the money for the license to a seat, but forget about SMS'ing somene or telling anyone what the score was.
I couldn't go around selling pictures of your mother without an agreement from her, she could sue me. This is why photographers have release forms for models (not that your mom is a model or anything).
Correct she could sue you, but so what? And incorrect, I could go around selling pictures of your mother without an agreement if those pictures were taken in public. Photojournalism is based on this, as is other forms of art. However, nothing could stop her from suing me, and probably winning in most courts. The key is usage of that image. If it is placed in an advertisement then yes a model release is needed if she is easily recognizable to be proven in a court of law. But if it is for artistic photography or photojournalistic photography, then the usage rights of the photographer can be judged higher than your mothers likeness rights. This of course can be subject to the judge or court hearing the case.
Sorry no links on this, and I am sure things have changed, but that is what was taught back in the late 90's at the photo institute I attended.
Of course I have seen a model sign a very thorough release and then later take the company and photographer to court and have the court rule in her favor. No model release is airtight if a lawyer knows how to spin the case. Now I am offtopic and will end this. Also, I may be completely wrong on all points, that is life.
This lawsuit is less about facts and more about players identities. A newspaper saying ballplayer X has a .241 batting average is legal because of freedom of the press and the fact that the newspaper is not using the identity of the player for commercial reasons. However, selling a product, such as baseball cards, with a picture and stats on the back is commercially using the players identity. This is a fine line I know.
b er-2005/argument_schwarz_novdec05.msp
The battle going on here is whether using the players names and stats in a fantasy game amounts to using it commercially or not. This article gives a really good summary:
http://www.legalaffairs.org/issues/November-Decem
"maybe that's why drugs are illegal; drug dealers complained that "we would lose money if drugs were legal"."
Actually, I've often suspected something along these lines, as the only people who are better off with illegal drugs are those selling them. Seems I'm not the only one, read High Society by Ben Elton.
To get back on topic, yeah this is stupid, you can't own facts. And that's a fact©
Hi -
p x?id=13182&printer-friendly=y
:)
Don't forget that around 1997 the NBA tried to prevent a wireless provider (Motorola?) from offering real time updates of scores of NBA games in progress. You can read about this below (I have included an excerpt), and how the PGA won a similar case about golf scores:
from:
http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/commentary.as
That outcome was a bit surprising, given the decision that another federal appeals court, the 2nd Circuit, reached in 1997. In that case, the National Basketball Association attempted to prevent Motorola from transmitting real-time basketball scores to its pager customers. The court concluded that the NBA had no exclusive rights to facts. The scores of the games in progress could be reported as part of the newsgathering process.
Hmmm...could that NBA lawsuit have been the reason that Charlie Ward said the things he did?
Um, you are joking, right? (The correct spelling of "Kofi Annan" is not yet, to my knowledge, copyrighted, but more seriously; he is the Secretary-General of the United Nations, not NATO.)
Luckily, the US goverment cannot copyright anything.
Cricket and Baseball have similarities in that they're both highly statistics based games.
In Cricket, the scores are most definitely public domain. I used to work for a company called Cricinfo as one of their admins in it's earlier days, and it's stats database (statsguru) is arguably the most complete source of statistics for cricket in the last few decades.
It was started by a group of fans into an ongoing company, simply because the stats on cricket were public domain. And it's raised a good sum of money in sponsorship for cricket along the way, and been a focal point for fans around the world.
Now, if the statistics for Cricket were deemed to be in the public domain, as it was quite possible for people to watch the match, tell someone else, and they could discuss it anywhere at any time, what makes Baseball different (apart from the fact that the organisers are trying to gouge money on everything they possibly can)?
The claim is presumably based on the principle that the fixtures are "created" and therefore subject to copyright. If you accept that, then why should other companies be able to profit from that act of creation without recognising the rights of the creators? I imagine that this would be particularly persuasive in the case of a pools company like Littlewoods, whose entire business model was based on the football fixtures list, yet didn't really put anything back into the game at all (at least not on a corporate level: in fact, members of the Moores family, who own Littlewoods, have been involved in the ownership of both Liverpool and Everton football clubs - Everton are the other big football club in Liverpool, for the benefit of non-UK readers - at various times).
Of course, the contrary point of view would be that compiling a fixture list is simply a cost of doing business for the football industry at large, and that any publication of fixture dates is a form of publicity for which the game should be grateful. This, however, would be inconsistent with the prevailing attitude in football, which is wring every last penny out of anyone they can by whatever means are available.
It may be that the status quo only holds up because no-one has challenged the 1959 case. After all, the sort of media outlet which publishes the entire fixture list for every club (i.e. national newspapers, football magazines and websites etc.) probably regards £6000 (the figure mentioned in the Guardian) as small potatoes compared to the aggravation of going to court. Legal action only ever seems to be threatened against these one-man-and-a-dog sort of operations.
The key difference between the situation here and what MLB is trying to do, though, is that baseball stats are matters of historical fact. Barry Bonds either did or did not hit 73 homers. Kerry Wood did or did not fan 20 Astros in a game. I don't see how that can be "owned".
You are 180 degrees wrong with the direction a law liek this would go.
You already CAN patent yourself. You can patent you own genes. The problem is yours have already been patended but that doesn't mean you didn't have the CHANCE to patent yourself, but you were just a little too late.
If you dont believe me read this.
So yes you can patent yourself but this does not give you power over government/corporate interests. It gives them power over you.
unzip; strip; touch; finger; mount; fsck; more; yes; unmount; sleep
In the UK we have an odd law around databases. In the US, traditionally data could not be copyrighted. In the UK, the first person to compile a specific database (think yellow pages) gets a monopoly on that kind of database for a number of years. It's a bit odd really...
There was a case in Texas, where building codes were copyrighted.
That's not uncommon at all. Most town, and even city councils can't figure out how to scratch their own asses, much less understand what is important to have in a building code, so they buy pre-written legislation from somebody. Unfortunatly, that same case will have to be fought elsewhere, and the mindless zombies that populate local governments and do what they've always done will have to be beaten into sumbision one at a time before things change. You're at their mercy, especially since they're all either union workers, or politicians that got elected on a single pet issue. Sure, a court case was won, but short of another law suit in every single town in the US, good luck getting your local building office to comply and publish the code without fee...
Actually, there are a lot of comapanies (Goole, MapQuest) that use the services of NavTech to get their data. Free map data is unlikely to include new roads and torn-down roads, etc.
Let's go Hurricanes!!! 2006 Stanley Cup Champions!!!
Box scores are a matter of public record. The NBA's claim was dismissed, and this goes for MLB box scores, as well as data like the record of moves in a chess game.
As David Nieporent has pointed out in several other places, the dispute is not about the statistics themselves.
n d/discussion/ap_fantasy_league_company_wants_free_ stats/
For more details see his posts at:
http://www.baseballthinkfactory.org/files/newssta
Selective quotes:
This is not about the "stats." This is about MLB trademarks, and (more importantly), the MLBPA members' right of publicity
Nobody owns data, no matter who "gathers" it. That's Feist. "Sweat of the brow" -- that is, effort -- does not create a property interest in data. Now, one can have a copyright in a compilation of the data, but not in the data itself. (A compilation can include the particular arrangement or selection of data -- but again, the data itself is not protected. And there needs to be at least _some_ creativity in the arrangement -- putting data in alphabetical order, for instance, does not qualify.
MLB -- regardless of what the article says -- isn't talking about the statistics themselves. The primary issue here, as I said earlier, is right of publicity. You know how the local Toyota dealership puts your team's shortstop on their highway billboard? Well, the reason they do that is because he lets them. And the reason he does that is because the dealership pays him to do so. And the reason they're willing to pay him to do so is because he won't let them them otherwise, and they can't do it if he won't let them. Not because it's false -- even if it is, it would hardly be defamatory -- but because he has what's known as a "right of publicity." Roughly speaking, the right to control how his name and/or likeness is used for commercial purposes.
But there's an important point: the right of publicity doesn't trump news reporting. You can't stop the local newspaper from reporting that you've just been arrested by citing the right of publicity. And you can't stop the local newspaper from printing what happened in yesterday's game.
Kerry Wood tied the strikeout record BEFORE his surgery, smartass. Nice try, and "way to go" to all you ignorami that modded his ignorance as "informative".