Posting Soccer Goals On Vine Is Illegal, Say England's Premier League

New submitter JonnyCalcutta writes: The football Premier League in England is warning about posting clips of goals on online services such as Vine and Twitter. The claim is that posting these clips is "illegal under copyright laws." I'm naturally dubious about blanket statements from rightsholders already known to push the truth, especially concerning such short clips, but I don't know enough about copyright law to understand the implications fully. Is it illegal? What can they actually do about it? Does adding commentary give the uploader any rights to post?

Comments

Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

They have a history of lying about copyright (claiming the the fixture list was copyrightable - they even sued over it, their legal arguments bordering on the vexatious).

No doubt they hold the copyright to their footage of the matches, but whether they can claim copyright over all video of the match regardless of origin is dubious at best. Where's the creative aspect required?

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[AvitarX]

They'll have to claim the fix the games to make them interesting, and that it's performance art and not competition perhaps.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[wonkey_monkey]

They are claiming copyright over their own footage.

The phenomena at question is that of people uploading mobile phone footage of TV footage, not of their own video of the match.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[O('_')O_Bush]

That is not what a Premiere League spokesperson stated in a recent interview with someone from the British media and was aired on NPR this morning. They specifically pointed out the cases where people record or take photos of parts of the game from their phones and post to Twitter/Vine.

Also, interesting to note, the interviewer specifically pointed out the NFL as going through the same type of frustrations. In typical British media form, the interviewer was pandering to corporate interest in focus and language, and didn't make a single mention of the rights of the recorders, which seems perverse given that many Vines fit comfortably under the measures of Fair Use in the U.S.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

They are claiming copyright over their own footage.

The phenomena at question is that of people uploading mobile phone footage of TV footage, not of their own video of the match.

I do not know what the premier league tickets say; but many venues, sports or otherwise, have limits on recording in the contact for the ticket. Realistically, most seem not to care about the iPhone clip posted to a web site; quite frankly it seems that fan clips wouldn't diminish the value of the venue's film. If I want a copy of a concert or game I buy the DVD, if available, because it is actually viewable in its entirety even if it lacks the shaking, background noise and random commentary of the iPhone version. The best model, IMHO, is the Dead, who said basically tape our concerts, trade the tapes for free, but buy our music, and other items. Seems to have worked out fine for them.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

Also, interesting to note, the interviewer specifically pointed out the NFL as going through the same type of frustrations. In typical British media form, the interviewer was pandering to corporate interest in focus and language, and didn't make a single mention of the rights of the recorders, which seems perverse given that many Vines fit comfortably under the measures of Fair Use in the U.S.

IANAL, but while it seems Fair Use might cover a snip from a commercial broadcast or even arguing a private short clip of a performance (or game, if you prefer); assuming the actual playing of the game constitutes a copyrighted work, there is still the contractual issue that often forbids taping the performance. That would seem to me to be the way to prevent distribution of the clip.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[MondoGordo]

IANAL either but as i understand it ... under UK Copyright law there is no "fair use" exception.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[wonkey_monkey]

They specifically pointed out the cases where people record or take photos of parts of the game from their phones and post to Twitter/Vine.

And said what about them? They're presumably covered there by the T&C's of admission/ticket holding.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. There is no such thing as fair use in the UK. But if the video/twitter feed is hosted in the US then I am not sure where the 'infringement' is considered to have taken place.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

It would legally be the same as a bootleg recording of a concert.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

>The phenomena at question is that of people uploading mobile phone footage of TV footage, not of their own video of the match.

No it isn't. It's people taking videos with their phones.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

... under UK Copyright law there is no "fair use" exception

That is correct. There are some specific exceptions, commonly referred to as "fair dealing" over here, and there have been some recent developments that will expand the scope of the exceptions, but there is no generic limitation on copyright determined by a set of qualitative tests like the Fair Use rules in the US. However, if we're talking about someone's own footage of the goals, the more important issue might be what the contract was when they bought their admission ticket.

If the conditions of entry clearly say no recording is allowed and that if any recordings are made anyway then all rights are assigned to the organisers, then my expectation is that the uploaders won't have a leg to stand on here. It would be very surprising in this day and age if such terms weren't routinely included, and I fully expect that this is how any debate about legality will wind up being resolved.

On the other hand, if there's nothing prohibiting the use of recording devices and nothing claiming any rights over recordings made by spectators, it might be tough to argue successfully in court along the lines that someone's personal recording was a copy or derivative work of some official recording that the organisers sell to TV networks. It's not an unprecedented idea: publishing photos of major public landmarks like the Hollywood sign or Eiffel Tower can be legally hazardous, particularly if commercial use is involved. However, those restrictions tend to result from some carefully contrived/created edge cases in the legal position for specific places, and it's hard to see how anything similar applies to a football match.

(IANAL so obviously you shouldn't trust anything you just read if it actually matters to you.)

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL either but as i understand it ... under UK Copyright law there is no "fair use" exception.

Well, it's called fair dealing and the scope is not exactly the same as US fair use. However it does exist so you appear to understand it wrongly (unless you were being very pedantic about the naming)...

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

Correct. There is no such thing as fair use in the UK. But if the video/twitter feed is hosted in the US then I am not sure where the 'infringement' is considered to have taken place.

Isn't it obvious? Without a fair-use clause, then recording the game in the UK is the infringement. The clip posted to a US-based service is evidence of the infringement.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[sg_oneill]

There is something called a "fair dealing" excemption that is recognized for british copyright.

Theres a case that pretty much specifically shows the premier league hasn't a leg to stand on.

Back in 1991 the BBC sued British Satelite broadcasting for showing clips of between 14 seconds to 30 seconds of goals , sometimes in slow motion, and the like from the 1990 world cup taken from BBC footage. The BBC said it had exclusive rights from FIFA therefore the BSB had no rights to rebroadcast the clips.

The court disagreed and found that the short clips where covered under fair dealing provisions and that it was ok to take the small clips and rebroadcast it.

Further under the Restricted Practice Act its possible to show that such exclusivity deals can *sometimes* be considered invalid as anti-trust , particularly if the exclusivity is for pay-to-view events covered under scheduled Listed Events.

In a nutshell, I suspect this is an empty threat and the premier league would have trouble convincing a court that a contract between it and the exclusive broadcaster somehow binds a third party who never agreed to it and thus has recourse to normal rights associated with copyright fair dealing.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[sg_oneill]

To add to this, if you got a drone or helicopter with a *really* good telescopic lens, or perhaps a window with a view at a local skyscraper, sports games are not copyrightable, only a specific recording. But since you havent entered the grounds, its *clearly* a public space and you havent agreed to the ticket conditions, you can stream the whole damn event and theres not a god damn thing that can be done about it by a parasitic rightsholder.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[TechyImmigrant]

I see no way in which a ticket limiting recording automatically transfers copyright of the recording from the creator to the venue.
It might allow the venue to kick out the person doing the recording, but it certainly doesn't hand them copyright to the work.
 

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[TechyImmigrant]

Same response as above. That agreement would enable them to kick someone out of the venue. It wouldn't cause a transfer of copyright.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

I see no way in which a ticket limiting recording automatically transfers copyright of the recording from the creator to the venue. It might allow the venue to kick out the person doing the recording, but it certainly doesn't hand them copyright to the work.

I would see two issues:

1. It is a contract violation and thus they could be forced by a court to delete or turnover the recording since it was made in violation of the contract

2. The venue owns the copyright to what was presented and thus even if you own the copyright to your recording you still cannot use it since you do not own rights to the performance.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[TechyImmigrant]

#1 Delete something that's all over the internet? That'll work.
#2 is wrong. Football matches are not copyright works in Europe. The courts have already determined that.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

The phenomena at question is that of people uploading mobile phone footage of TV footage, not of their own video of the match.

A shitty copy is still a copy.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[newcastlejon]

They'll have to claim the fix the games to make them interesting, and that it's performance art and not competition perhaps.

Of course it is. Just look at the way some of them fall over; sometimes it borders on interpretive dance.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[St.Creed]

Jumping over a fence, using whatever equipment you want (drones or whatever), doesn't suddenly turn an enclosed, walled off and guarded space into a public space. So I wouldn't use that argument.

But if you were to overlook the field from an appartment or highrise in the area, well, that would be fair game I suppose.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

#1 Delete something that's all over the internet? That'll work. #2 is wrong. Football matches are not copyright works in Europe. The courts have already determined that.

I agree 1 is difficult; an alternate fix would be to collect damages; or perhaps since google can forget events they can forget videos. As for 2, I was referring to US copyright law. YMMV.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[jrumney]

What contractual issue? I didn't sign any contract when I bought tickets to the match. I also didn't receive any consideration for the copyright I allegedly assigned in this contract they are talking about.

Re:Pinch of salt needed

[TechyImmigrant]

Fair enough. I was talking about European law because TFA was about the English Premier League.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[sg_oneill]

Jumping over a fence, using whatever equipment you want (drones or whatever), doesn't suddenly turn an enclosed, walled off and guarded space into a public space. So I wouldn't use that argument.

My point refers to an "expectation of privacy" in the sense that regulation around photography and journalism applies. If you hold an open event or even a ticketed event, nobody in there has an expectation of privacy that they can act in a way that would not be available to scrutiny. For people *entering it* they might waive their right to film each other, but keep in mind here the drone operator is not agreeing to that so he can't be held to it. As long as his drone doesnt enter the property he's free to point the camera on it wherever he wants, except , of course , in your bedroom window , so to speak (re "expectation of privacy" as judges see it)

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[gronofer]

Conditions of entry don't have any effect on copyright law, as far as I know. Copyright will still be held by the person making the video, and any action by the organisers would need to be on some other grounds (such as contract violation.)

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

What contractual issue? I didn't sign any contract when I bought tickets to the match. I also didn't receive any consideration for the copyright I allegedly assigned in this contract they are talking about.

Don't have to sign a contract, in the US at least, for it to be valid. All there needs to be is offer, acceptance, and consideration. You agreed to it by buying the tickets. they offered you an opportunity to see the match, you accepted their offer and bought the tickets and thus agree to the terms of their offer. You may not like the terms, and I personally think the no video rules are dumb, but the course of action then is not to buy a ticket. If you violate the terms of the deal they have a right to a civil action and a court gets to decide if the terms are enforceable.

As for consideration for your copyright you would not be entitled to it since you agreed not to video when you bought the ticket.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Brave Guy]

Conditions of entry don't have any effect on copyright law, as far as I know.

Not by default, but I know of no legal reason an admission contract couldn't include a clause transferring copyright in any recordings made to the organisers.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[St.Creed]

Expectation of privacy deals with portrayal of humans, but I'm not sure that's the issue here (no football player in a stadium has any expectation of privacy to begin with, I think we can all agree on that). I think "public vs. private space" is going to be the main focus of any lawsuit, because it's about the right of the drone operator to enter private grounds to begin with. Or private airspace - and that's an even bigger can of worms due to the laws about where private and public airspaces start. I know that a lot of countries have different laws on that one.

Let's just say the only ones getting rich from the first few drone video's of football games would be the lawyers.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[jrumney]

Not being allowed to do something because of some Ts&Cs does not mean you are not entitled to your copyright. As you said, they can take civil action over your breaking of their rules, but they don't get to use copyright law for getting it taken down.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

Not being allowed to do something because of some Ts&Cs does not mean you are not entitled to your copyright. As you said, they can take civil action over your breaking of their rules, but they don't get to use copyright law for getting it taken down.

They do since the underlying work would be covered by their copyright and thus your work is an unauthorized derivative work, in the US at least. It's no different then me taking a picture of some artist's work and selling the picture or videoing a movie in a theatre. I may own the copyright to my picture but I cannot distribute it because of the underlying copyrighted work. Again, IANAL and realize copyright law is very complex but simply because you created a work doesn't mean you have the rights needed to distribute it.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[jrumney]

Are you suggesting that the goals scored in BPL games are choreographed? Because otherwise there is no artistic element to their "performance" that could qualify for copyright protection.

Re: Pinch of salt needed

[Registered Coward v2]

Are you suggesting that the goals scored in BPL games are choreographed? Because otherwise there is no artistic element to their "performance" that could qualify for copyright protection.

Goals, no. Dives, maybe but that's another story. A performance doesn't have to be choreographed in order to qualify for protection, at least not in the US. If they record it then they have a copyright on the recording at a minimum; the question is the underlying game merely an uncopyrightable set of facts or an expressive interpretation? The EU court clearly says the game play is not subject to copyright. I could see someone, in the US at least, arguing because teams develop their own unique playbooks and then execute the plays they've fixed the performance (the playbook) and now are merely performing it in an impromptu but scripted manner. Personally, in the US at least, I'd guess they'd go after the use of team trademarks and contractual violations since that probably is an easier way to remove a video or prevent its use.

PL = Honorable Institution.

[goruka]

Even if thee free publicity would lead to more people watching and consuming soccer-related products and services in the long run, It's always good to see honorable institutions such as the Premier League inciting everyone to be a good citizen and abide the law, at the cost of them losing money. A true example to follow.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Richard_at_work]

"Blackie" in the UK is a racist and offensive term - he is employed and works in the UK, so he is subject to UK laws and levels of standards with regard to his actions in the UK. Oh, and he said a lot more than just calling Evra a "blackie" - I suggest you refresh your memory of the incident...

Besides, Luis Suarez should be permanently banned from professional football for his various issues over the years. He is uncontrollable and has absolutely no conscience with regard to his past actions.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Anonymous Coward]

Hmm... maybe he should give trolling a go? I know the GIFT theory assumes a normal person, but if you take a person who already is a fuckwad, what do you get? Maybe it cures them IRL.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Anonymous Coward]

..he is employed and works in the UK...

Wrooong!
 

Besides, Luis Suarez should be permanently banned from professional football....

La tenés adentro y todavía te duele...

Professional football should be banned.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Stargoat]

So because Suarez is in the UK, when speaking in his native tongue, he uses a word that sounds like nigger, he is automatically a racist? This word negrito, btw, a word Suarez's grandmother still calls him.

So much for the most cosmopolitan league in the world. It's no wonder that all the best players are leaving for Spain. I never thought the country of Wilberforce would be so racist in the 21st century as to make the USA look tolerant in comparison.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Richard_at_work]

When you are in another country, you abide by that countries rules. When you play in a football league, you abide by that leagues rules. Suarez abided by neither, and thus deserved his punishment.

And again I suggest you actually investigate what he said, because "negrito" is far from the sole term he used, and it most certainly was not used in the same manner as his grandmother apparently uses it.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Tyrannicsupremacy]

Well then never talk shit about North Korea punishing its people for speaking out against the government, because after all, they are subject to NK laws and levels of standards. The lawmakers know best of course. It's for the Greater Good.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[TangoMargarine]

Pulling out the excuse "my grandparent says that" doesn't work when we're talking racism. Lots of grandparents spout racist shit.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Shatrat]

When you are in another country, you abide by that countries rules.

I agree with the sentiment in this case, but not the concept. Every country in the world has some fucked up rules better off ignored.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[jeremyp]

The Premier League / FA is a bunch of racists. The hitjob they did on Luis Suarez for the use of his non-offensive word negrito (ie blackie, a South American equivalent of calling someone Red) smacks of the worst of Jim Crow. England should and eventually will be ashamed of this.

Bite me...

Re:PL = Honorable Institution.

[Stargoat]

A response that might be expected from an Alabama asshole with eye holes cut out of his sheets.

So much for the most metropolitan league on the planet. Provincial idiots like yourself are only one step removed from the buffoons tossing bananas at players.

"Does adding commentary give rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

It SHOULD, if all copyright issues were handled the same way. This isn't the case, it's a matter of individual clever lawyers and big sacks of money.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but the way I understand copyright if you add commentary you have rights over that commentary. It is your copyright. Now, sticking your copyrighted work on top of an infringing base is the issue here. The base doesn't become less infringing just because you added your own work on top (creating derived work). You can take your commentary and post it by itself, and nobody would complain (can't copyright facts), but it would definitely have less value than when overimposed on the infringing base. You need permission to _use_ the underlying work before you create derivatives. Otherwise, you'll have create a similar work yourself, by, say, filming your mom kicking the ball into the net, and commenting on that.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[SydShamino]

Speaking for U.S. law, you understand copyright wrong. The fair use doctrine allows for use of copyrighted works for the purpose of "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research".

Part of the criteria for determining if use of a copyrighted work is fair use includes the "amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole", so, for example, if I were to post a Vine video of a goal, along with commentary like "Manchester United played a great game today, with three goals including this exciting one by Bob Smith", then I am (your pick) commenting, critiquing, or reporting on the entire hour and a half game, while posting a five second clip of that game. In the U.S., that is clearly fair use unless the other side's lawyers have more money than you do.

I realize this story is about England, but I'm relatively certain that every Slashdot commenter including the parent is discussing this in terms of U.S. law, so I did as well.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[wonkey_monkey]

along with commentary like "Manchester United played a great game today, with three goals including this exciting one by Bob Smith"

Then you're not commenting on the footage. You're commenting on the activity depicted, not the depiction. /Devil's advocate

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[SydShamino]

So if I'm commenting on a movie, and I talk about the motivations of the character, it is infringement to show a clip of that character doing something? I'm talking about the actions of the character, not the angle and lighting at which they were filmed doing it.

By your logic, video would never be subject to fair use except when critiquing the cinematography. That is clearly not true.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[wonkey_monkey]

Those are all part of the same complete work. A sports broadcast could be regarded as an (almost incidental) recording of a separate performance.

It might be considered unfair use if, say, you were commenting on the life of Jesus with clips from The Passion of the Christ as illustration.

Again, Devil's advocate.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights"

[Anonymous Coward]

"amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole",

You'd have better luck arguing that a short clip of players fucking around in the midfield is covered under Fair Use. The goals are a substantial part of soccer.

Also, if you aren't affiliated with an academic institution or established press, you have zero chance of success in a Fair Use defense. It's interpreted very narrowly.

Rights holders wear hairy asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the NFL's voice-over before broadcasts, even a discussion of the game is a violation of their rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. But who is going to go the the trouble of challenging that claim in court? Seems like they intentionally over claim their rights as a matter of policy so as to give themselves a big scary law-suit stick with which to frighten people into doing what they want.

Re:Rights holders wear hairy asshats

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the NFL's voice-over before broadcasts, even a discussion of the game is a violation of their rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. But who is going to go the the trouble of challenging that claim in court? Seems like they intentionally over claim their rights as a matter of policy so as to give themselves a big scary law-suit stick with which to frighten people into doing what they want.

The own the idea, i.e. patent, for each broadcast. Each broadcast is a distinct method to entertain viewers and generate money. Aren't business methods the most important patents?

captcha: hubris

Re:Rights holders wear hairy asshats

[tepples]

[The NFL] own the idea, i.e. patent, for each broadcast.

What are the patent numbers or even patent application numbers? The only American football patent I'm aware of is the Arena Football League's rebound net patent.

Is there a barrister in the house?

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

EPL -might- be right. British law, particularly copyright law, is a little weird.

We're going to get a LOT of US Centric comments here, but I'm really hoping someone with an understanding of British law can help clear up this mess.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

All football games are registered as dance performances and are thus copyrighted.

Professional football players all have tiny tutus sewn under the hem of their pants.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

All football games are registered as dance performances and are thus copyrighted.

Professional football players all have tiny tutus sewn under the hem of their pants.

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know about "dance" per se, but dramatic acting is certainly pervasive in professional soccer these days...

-AC

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Xest]

British copyright law really isn't that weird, perhaps the most weird things about it are the desperate attempts by police to take down piracy websites using fraud laws because it's the closest thing they could find - a tactic which has only netted them mixed success at best. British copyright law is actually fairly typical because it's based on the Berne convention like that of most countries. The Premier League is clearly arguing that Fair Dealing does not exist under UK law, which is patently false.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/F...

Posting short snippets of a match on Twitter could arguably fall under any of the fair dealing exemptions, though at least 3 of them it seems to clearly fall under - i.e. criticism, review, and reporting of current events. The argument that such posts are for research are tenuous, but not impossible to make, but the argument that they fall under criticism, review, and reporting of current events seem to be pretty bulletproof.

Provided there is no commercial gain in the posting, and provided people stick to small snippets of just the goals then it seems pretty clear that the Premier League is outright lying and should simply be told to go fuck itself. Fair Dealing also requires that the original work already be available to the public in the first place, but that's also a given given that the whole fucking point in such football matches is that they're a public performance - the guys on the pitch aren't playing for shits and giggles like kids in a schoolyard, they're playing to make money and entertain, that is after all why they have stadiums and cameras around them that also then make a fortune broadcasting the event across the globe to millions of people, so the Premier League clearly can't use that argument either.

Given that the reason people post goals in the first place is to say "What an amazing goal!" or "What a shit goal!", given that the performances are clearly available to the public to start with (anyone can pay to see one live or on TV), and providing no commercial motive then I don't see how the Premier League could ever possibly argue that this isn't a legitimate use of the criticism or review clauses against the performance in question.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean

Then you are clearly an idiot, or entirely unfamiliar with any form of football other than soccer!

There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian. Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...

-AC

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[jecblackpepper]

In the UK the term football (with no other clarification) means Association Football. US gridiron football is called "American Football". Rugby Football is called "Rugby".

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Registered Coward v2]

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean

Then you are clearly an idiot, or entirely unfamiliar with any form of football other than soccer!

There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian. Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...

-AC

Canadians beg to differ. Oh wait, they're just the 51st state anyway so you are correct. My bad.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

I believe you mean handegg. Football is a sport in which one moves a ball about a pitch with his feet. Startlingly complicated, certainly, but true all the same.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

What's your point?

a) the post I replied to SPECIFICALLY indicated that the poster couldn't tell if it was soccer or "grid iron" football, so clearly he was cognizant of the existence of non-European uses of the term "football"

b) The definition of the WORD football, in the English language specifies that it may refer to any one of several disparate sports. Note also that the post was written in English, over the GLOBAL internet, on an American website.
Definition: "football"

c) Your tautology notwithstanding, (rugby is indeed called rugby!), Australian Rules Football, despite bearing a passing resemblance to rugby, is not rugby!
Australian Rules Football

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anne Thwacks]

Professional diving appears to be an important part of Wold Cup football these days. .

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

LoL -- I *AM* Canadian, I've even held the Grey Cup! and yet I used "North American" to collectivise both the NFL and CFL variants under a single banner. They are, after all, largely the same GAME, with some slightly different rules. Historically speaking, they were even developed in tandem and although their rules do reflect some differences as a result of regionalisation, when they are compared side-by-side with, for example, Soccer, or Footie, they themselves are essentially the same sport...

-AC

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[TangoMargarine]

Hockey = Canadian football?

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

... which is patently false...

Let's stick to the subject, huh? We're arguing about copyrights, not patents

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian.

You've missed out several "kinds" of football, and describing "soccer" as "European" with no further qualification is somewhat misleading (there are several kinds of football that originated in Europe, including Association Football, i.e. soccer, and Rugby Football, both of which are English in origin -- and note that there are two different competing rulesets for Rugby). You've also missed Gaelic football, and a number of other rarer kinds.

Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...

That, I'll agree with, so long as we concede that only rugby football could be conflated with a warzone.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Registered Coward v2]

Hockey = Canadian football?

Hockey = Life, the Universe and Everything

Football = Sport

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Cederic]

I can make that concession only because even war follows some rules, and Aussie football clearly does not.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

How does Fair Dealing enter into it? Has to be copyrighted first, and a football/soccer game does not fall under copyright laws in the UK.

"The types of work eligible for copyright protection include a literary, dramatic, artistic or musical work, the typographical arrangement of a published edition, a sound recording, a film, or a broadcast"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Works_eligible_for_protection

And it's not listed under any performance right either.

"A performance is defined as a dramatic performance, a musical performance, a reading of a literary work or a variety act. The performers involved in a performance and any person who has recording rights with respect to a performance qualify for performance rights. However a performance must be a qualifying performance for the rights to exist."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Copyright_law_of_the_United_Kingdom#Performance_right

I fail to see how copyright could be involved at all, except for the owner of the video who also owns the copyright to the video.

Record the goal on your cell phone and you own the copyright, but small print on the back of the ticket may constitute a contract that prohibits you from recording.

IANAL
.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Anonymous Coward]

the argument that they fall under criticism, review, and reporting of current events seem to be pretty bulletproof.

These have been consistently held as academic criticism, academic review, and professional reporting of current events. It is a deliberately narrow interpretation, and unless you are affiliated with a university or media house, you have fuck all chance of being covered.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[Em Adespoton]

It's obviously not NFL or CFL; any tutu sewn under their leotards would be immediately obvious to the world. My guess is we're talking Premier League rules football. This kind of makes sense when you think about the artistry behind taking a dive....

Re:Is there a barrister in the house?

[jeremyp]

Also Rugby football with two subdivisions (league and union) and Gaelic football.

Laws vary by country.

[gurps_npc]

So what may be illegal in England is not necessary illegal in the United States.

In the United States, you are definitely allowed to show a short clip of the the guy starting at the kick and ending at the goal.

Merely putting a comment under the video is unlikely to help your legal case in any country. But burning a voice over into the video would add 'original content' to it, and that might give you more rights.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

From a legal standpoint, I don't know that you're correct. In the same regard that I cannot sample a short section of someone else's audio without their permission, I don't believe that your statement that you would be allowed to sample a short section of a video without permission.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

" In the same regard that I cannot sample a short section of someone else's audio without their permission" But you can, you just have to ADD TO/ALTER it.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[king neckbeard]

Bridgeport is a weird precedent to be using, especially outside of the context of music sampling. Since the UK has at least semi-functional news programmes, I highly doubt that this would apply here.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the US performances aren't copyrightable in that way. What's more sports aren't creative anyways. So, bootleg copies of performances may or may not be legal, there is no law protecting sports performances from recording. They just say that during games as a way of keeping the league happy.

So, if you make your own tape that's yours to disseminate, but if you use their recording that copyright belongs to somebody else.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

No, you really can't (at least in the US). Look at the numerous cases against major hip-hop/rap artists that have occurred. It is illegal. Quoting Wikipedia (which is not the best source, but I do not have time to find you more appropriate ones):

The most recent significant copyright case involving sampling held that even sampling three notes could constitute copyright infringement (Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005)). This case was roundly criticized by many in the music industry, including the RIAA.

Source

So as little as 3 notes can construe copyright, but a soccer goal is perfectly fine.

I'm by no means endorsing that this is the case, merely pointing out that it is fact.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

Should be a question mark after perfectly fine, not period.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Zontar_Thing_From_Ve]

So what may be illegal in England is not necessary illegal in the United States.

In the United States, you are definitely allowed to show a short clip of the the guy starting at the kick and ending at the goal.

Not exactly. It should be legal in the USA if the clip is really short, but there are no guarantees. Neither lawmakers nor courts have ever explicitly defined what "Fair Use" means, so if someone says "it's Fair Use" and a copyright holder disagrees, it takes a court case to rule on who is right. And as I always say, if you go to court in the USA, literally anything at all can happen. One court might rule that a 10 second clip is clearly Fair Use and another might rule that it's clearly a copyright violation. I know of a case in recent years where a local court got admonished by an appellate court for making up the law they used in their original ruling so literally anything can happen in US courts.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

I was not referencing specifically Bridgeport. But, if you want to use news analogies, we can do that too, they almost always cite their source for sporting as the holder of copyright (or buy copyright outright/"clear" it beforehand). As such, I would expect that their copyright claim is legit.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

INAL:

In the UK fair use is pretty well defined (and its probably the same in the US.) Fair use does not cover what a lot of people think, mainly "I'm using this music in a non-profit funny video" or "I'm using this image for a charity poster" essentially a lot of people THINK it means that if you're not making money from it (lol video or charity) or its not the main focus (background music in your hilarious video) then its fair use. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Fair use things such as education, critique, parody and news. While this is not a complete list the idea of it is the following:
If you create a new thing ABOUT a current thing then its fair use (for example a news report ABOUT a song)
Or if its for educational use.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

A useful chart designed (primarily) for teachers references: http://langwitches.org/blog/wp...

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Jason Levine]

Not to mention that going to court to defend your Fair Use rights will cost you time and money. So if Big Corporation X says "that video you posted including a tiny snippet of our material is violating our copyright. Take it down.", you have two options:

1) Take it down. Pro: You don't spend a lot of time and money fighting a lawsuit. Con: You've rolled over instead of defending your Fair Use rights.

2) Keep it up and fight for your Fair Use rights. Pro: You are defending your rights. Con: You can spend a lot of time and money fighting the lawsuit. If you win, you might not get legal fees paid. If you lose, you might be liable for copyright infringement fines totaling many thousands of dollars.

Sadly, defending your rights against a giant corporation winds up being a losing proposition for most people.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[flopsquad]

Agreed. Music is at the far right end of the factual <---> creative scale, and US judges have been especially strident and hard-line about music sampling in particular ("if you're going to sample, get license, period!"). Whereas, footage of a soccer goal is both factual and newsworthy. There may be copyright in the broadcast, but this is not cut from the same cloth as music, poetry, painting, etc. This isn't sampling either; that would be more like "autotune the news." Thus a short goal clip should fall under fair use in the United States.

EU/UK fair use ("fair dealing") law is different than US, in part because they don't have a 1st Amendment. They do allow for news reporting, comment, and criticism. However, across the pond their copyright exceptions (of which fair use is one) tend to be stricter and much more... I guess you'd call it "enumerated," in the sense that they list out acceptable use cases. OTOH, they have a way better "compulsory" (-ish) licensing system in the UK, covering a broader range of materials and uses than the U.S. (which covers mostly song compositions and certain broadcaster licenses).

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

Conan O'Brien has a recurrent segment where he SLIGHTLY alters songs, like 1-2 notes, and makes the audience guess which copyright protected song it is.

So if it's illegal, he's skating.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[king neckbeard]

I think in regards to music sampling, it's more an issue of an incompetent/corrupt judge than what a proper reading of the law and case law would return. Bridgeport is a troll with someone dubious claims to the copyrights they sued over. At the very least, they obtained the rights by confusing George Clinton.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[king neckbeard]

The claim of copyright is not disputed. What is disputed is whether or not the actions are disputed. That they typically source the material doesn't mean that they are infringing. It's a common courtesy, standard practice for those kinds of organizations, and an extra step to cover their ass. Also, a decent portion of the time, the source is something ultimately owned by the same company, in which case they would want to advertise and also reinforce the notion of those ridiculous copyright claims.

Re:Laws vary by country.

[Anonymous Coward]

In the USA, copyright applies to the maker of the recording/picture, with exceptions (like if you photograph a picture, you do not own all of the copyright). So if you recorded the entire game, you would own the copyright on that video.

Ticket ToS

[QuietLagoon]

What terms of service do you agree to when you purchase a ticket and attend the event? Do you agree not to take and post videos of the event?

Re:Ticket ToS

[Arathon]

this is pertinent, but doesn't affect copyright law, which in most countries exists regardless of and completely separate from most contractual agreements.

as I mentioned elsewhere, they might have standing to eject you from the stadium over a breach of this contract, but that doesn't mean copyright law is applicable.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Richard_at_work]

Standard terms of copyright for a performance in the UK - if you video it, you own the copyright on the video, but the performer owns the copyright on the performance so you still cannot legally distribute your video without infringing on the performers copyright.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

Read the actual story for once.

They're talking about people recording it off the TV, then posting THAT on Twitter.

They aren't talking about people who film the goals with their own cameras, though I don't know what regulations exist for people in the stadiums.

Re:Ticket ToS

[QuietLagoon]

Read the actual story for once....

I did read the story. I was merely posing the same question from a differing angle in order to learn how the differing situation may affect the legality.

Re:Ticket ToS

[RyuuzakiTetsuya]

That actually doesn't seem completely unreasonable, however, I think it's really petty to go after people who post goals to Vine, instagram, etc.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Jahta]

What terms of service do you agree to when you purchase a ticket and attend the event? Do you agree not to take and post videos of the event?

The ticket ToS specifically forbids any posting of match content. In fact you cannot bring any dedicated "audio, visual, or audio-visual" equipment into the ground. You can bring your mobile phone with you but, if you use it to capture any of the action, nothing you capture "may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites."

The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

If you take your own video, wouldn't YOU own the copyright on it?

Re:Ticket ToS

[Jason Levine]

In a similar fashion, you can enter any mall in America and start taking photos of everything in sight. The mall can toss you out and even ban you from ever entering again. If you do, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The photos you've taken while there, though, are under your copyright and they can't order you to delete them (or, worse, seize your camera and delete them). Whether you can use them commercially is another story, but simply posting a shot online would be fine.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

Is a sport a 'performance' though, in terms of copyright. I would argue that a musical concert differs significantly from a sporting even in terms of what is happening (pro wrestling might fall more to the side of a concert, it being a scripted event an all). Since a (proper) sporting event is essentially just binging two competing parties together and letting them duel it out, there may be creativity on the part of either party, but no one party can be said to have done the creation. Even the party that brought those two parties together.

This is all just my opinion, however, but otherwise you could declare that pictures of people walking around are illegal to post because those people 'creatively' got into the positions they were in, rather than just doing so as part of their regular actions of the day.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

What does copyright have to do with the ticket ToS? You didn't agree to assign copyright of your pictures to anyone else, so you own the copyright. You agreed to not take pictures, and if you break that agreement, they have the right to throw you out and/or ban you from attending games.

Re:Ticket ToS

[FriendlyStatistician]

You're making an argument based on contracts, which is not the same argument the PL is making.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.

Not necessarily. Contracts in English law are not absolute. The Unfair Terms in Consumer Contracts Regulations state that if a term in a standard form contract (like the ones on the tickets) "causes significant imbalance in the parties' rights and obligations" the term has no effect. Therefore, this term requiring people not to post video clips could be argued against, and a judge may agree that it is unfair, resulting in the term effectively being struck out of the contract.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Pharmboy]

Not exactly. There is no freedom of panorama in the US, so sorry, but you are mistaken. Some photos of the inside might be ok, but anything that has arguably has artistic content (ie: more than text) would be fully copyrighted by the designer. You could argue "Fair Use", but the copyright still doesn't change hands, it isn't yours. Years of arguing with lawyers and such on Commons will teach you that.

Re:Ticket ToS

[Jason Levine]

I suggest you read the Photographer's Rights site.

There have been security guards who have harassed photographers for taking photos of buildings because the building designs are "copyrighted." You are allowed to take a photo of a copyrighted object. (If you couldn't, someone wearing a shirt bearing the likeness of any copyrighted fictional character could end all street photography in an area.) You may or may not be able to publish said photo (depending on the circumstances), but you can certainly take the photo and enjoy it for your own private use. Nobody is saying that the copyright of the original changes hands, but you own the copyright of any photo you take.

Awhile back, Toyota tried to claim that they owned a copyright on any Toyota vehicle and so any photographs containing Toyotas were owned by them regardless of who took the picture. (They actually used the DMCA to take down photos involving Toyotas.) Needless to say, they didn't succeed and you can take a photograph of any Toyota in public without having to turn said photo over to Toyota.

Private places can tell you up front that photography is not allowed (e.g. museums where the exhibits would suffer from the flashes or movie theaters). If they do, they can kick you out for photographing where you were told not to. What they can't do, though, is order you to delete those photos. They can contact the police, try to have you arrested, and sue for the photos to be destroyed. They can't demand that you hand over your camera so that they can delete the photos or detain you until you delete the photos yourself.

Re:Ticket ToS

[larien]

You're right, it has nothing to do with copyright, it's contract law (essentially) and laws covering permission to take pictures on private land (the football stadium).

The argument from the premier league is around videoing clips off the TV and posting online which is pretty clear copyright infringement.

Re:Ticket ToS

[fermion]

In many venues there are limits to the recording devices you may take in and use. These are largely in place to limit the quality of the fan images to protect the market for the professional images, which generate a great deal of money. These rules are enforced by bag checks, metal detectors, even pat downs. In addition, the primary function of the ushers seem to be monitoring the fans for use of prohibited devices.

That said, the result of violation of these limits is not generally criminal. If I take a picture of cirque du soleil, for example, I will be asked to stop or be ejected if I do not. Likewise, if I am recording a soccer match, and that is the only way to catch a goal, the rules might be that I delete the recording or be ejected, and if I am always doing this the league has the freedom not to sell me or ticket or let me in if I get a ticket.

So under the terms of service, the solution is to ban these people who post goals from attending the game. Claiming the activity itself is illegal is silly. The best the league can hope for is that a person who has been banned might get arrested for trespassing if they ignore the ban and it can be proven they were aware they were banned.

Re:Ticket ToS

[jrumney]

Football is only a performance when the match has been choreographed beforehand. Are the BPL admitting to large scale match fixing here?

Re:Ticket ToS

[Anonymous Coward]

this is pertinent, but doesn't affect copyright law, which in most countries exists regardless of and completely separate from most contractual agreements.

IP could be addressed via contracts and private agreements. Want to wear the Goofy costume at Disney? Agree to respect their copyrights. Want to visit Disney or see one of their movements, then agree to the same. Reasonable and judicial review (private or otherwise) ought to prevail. So you can 'compel' a 3 year old to respect the copyright for a few years at best perhaps but not if she at 16 is an anti-Disney advocate with no further obligations made to them (by her, and not on her behalf).

Why is this relevant? Because the IP thugs elected for a specifically non-contractual, non-civil, non-private, non-voluntary agreement. The actual verbage of the Berne Convention states it thusly, "FUCK YOU! THAT'S WHY!".

Copyright law ought to be very strongly affected by the fact that it is explicitly "completely separate from most contractual agreements". Live by the IP law...

Rights holders wear big hairy ass-hats

[Anonymous Coward]

According to the voice-over before broadcasts, even discussing the games is a violation of the NFL's rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. It seems a matter of policy to claim overly broad rights so as to have a big-scary-lawsuit stick with which to threaten everyone into submitting to their brutal will.

Is this actually a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my downloading fun as much as the next person, but are we actually at the point with this generation that somebody is asking a genuine question: "Company paid $3billion for rights to something; can I take it, distributive it massively for free, or is it for some strange reason a violation of copyright?"

Of bloody course it is. Don't be daft.

What can they do about it is another question entirely; but let's not delude and be dishonest with ourselves, whatever our opinions may be on morality of the situation or what _should_ be the case, whether taking somebody else's content and reposting is legally OK under current laws in much of the world.

Re:Is this actually a question

[Terry Pearson]

... taking somebody else's content and reposting is l...

Your premise is wrong here. "Taking" is not the right word when the other still has their original. "Copying" may be the correct term, but "taking" implies the other party no longer has possession of something.

I know you were not trying to be a copyright troll, but it is the language they use. We must be careful to use the correct language because "taking" has much different historical implications than "copying".

Re:Is this actually a question

[pla]

are we actually at the point with this generation that somebody is asking a genuine question:

Yes, thank $Deity.

Fair use rights might actually apply to a short snippet - As a brief clip of semi-factual material ("This happened"), for noncommercial purposes and that doesn't at all diminish demand for the "original" product, it pretty soundly passes the "four factor" test in the US, though UK law no doubt differs on what they consider fair use.

However, a critical "fifth factor" exists that underlies the first four - Namely, what does the general public consider "short enough"? What do they consider educational or informative? What do they consider factual vs creative? Even whether or not to consider a given use as commercial varies based on attitudes (if you post it somewhere that has ads, you may have used it noncommercially, but what about the hosting site?).

I, for one, take it as a great sign for the future that today's kids - And even 30-somethings - Have more-or-less completely loss respect for overly restrictive copyrights. The more lax the general public feels about it, the harder it will get for megacorps to block us from access to our own culture.

Re:Is this actually a question

[mean pun]

You're taking the word "taking" out of context: from the context it was clear what he meant, and it was never implied that the original owner didn't have the video any more.

Note that my use of the word "taking" does not mean the OP doesn't have that word any more.

Re:Is this actually a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Please show us both an accepted definition of the word, as well as a case exemplar where someone takes something of someone else's without depriving that person of that thing? (unless/until the original person takes it back of course)

The copyright industry absolutely wants to promote what you're advocating because it helps their PR wing do it's job. The same as when they refer to "copying" as "stealing"... It's adspeak for the purposes of misdirection and manipulation, neither of which excuse the deliberate misuse of the language.

-AC

Re:Is this actually a question

[Anonymous Coward]

I understand your point perfectly; However, I did not mean to imply with the word "taking" here a physical removal of something in a closed-sum system, but a colloquial usage of the word, similarly to "grabbing something off the internet" etc.

Either way, my premise was not that something was physically removed; my premise was that a company paid a huge sum to obtain exclusive copyright and distribution rights, it's right there in the darn article, and I deem a question "Hey Slashdot, is it OK if I then copy (if you will;) this stuff and distribute it on my own account, even though this article specifically says those guys paid for exclusive rights to do that??".
[this is without even going into the ad-supported nature of most such much-subscribed personal channels]

Re:Is this actually a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Taking someone's picture? AFAIK, the person in the picture would still be in possession of their face.

if you're just posting the good parts...

[Kludge]

They may have a point.
Other than the goals and near-goals, soccer is pretty boring. If you post those, then there is no point in actually watching the game and consuming the advertising.

Re:if you're just posting the good parts...

[Anonymous Coward]

Soccer: Creating A Beautiful Game

Re:if you're just posting the good parts...

[Kjella]

That there are so few goals is what makes soccer so huge. I played a different sport where the result might be more like 10-4, nobody really cares about a bad referee call or a few missed chances or the lucky goal it's obvious the better team won anyway. In soccer the result might be 2-1 and there's no end to the bullshit fans will make up about controversial decisions, missed chances, lucky shots and whatnot that meant that they could have, should have, would have won or drawn. It's somewhere between sports and Texas Hold 'Em, the poker pro will win on average but on a good day the worst team walks away with the victory. Fully deserved of course *cough*.

fuck copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I'm not taking anything from you by repeating information. If you don't like it, don't produce it - there are 7 billion more people where you came from, so you won't be missed.

Re:fuck copyright

[gnupun]

You're wrong. You're reducing potential profit from the copyright holders by rebroadcasting information for free. If you were a stadium ticket buyer, or watched the game on TV or DVD, would you be willing to spend the time or the money to watch the game, had you already seen the clips on the web? No.

In short, if you can see the good parts for free on the web, you won't visit the stadium for the match or watch it on TV thereby reducing profit for copyright holders. And copyright is all about preventing freeloaders from reducing profit to copyright holders.

Re:fuck copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You ARE taking something away from someone by repeating their information; specifically, if you repeat their information in a commercial fashion then you are taking away their job and depriving them of something to leverage in contractual negotiations. It's different from actual theft but still important.

Trust me, if copyright didn't exist, the LAST people to get screwed over would be the people who own the content industry. In fact, thanks to the sharing economy, the content industry has been able to cut costs massively by, say, replacing actual reporters with shit posted to CNN iReport. The people who get screwed over by inadequate protections are independent artists who lack the ability to exploit lucrative licensing opportunities. Today's copyright laws are actually inadequate, despite being also overbearing, since they protect the wrong things. e.g. they're more focused on ensuring Disney can license their copyrighted property to the hilt rather than ensuring new works are properly protected. An indie musician's album is going to sell like shit and get ten cents from Spotify royalties, but Generic Pop Singer #1337 has access to revenue streams far more lucrative than just selling an album.

If you don't care about any of this, fine - continue to enjoy a world where our movies are remake after remake after remake, our news is funded primarily by rich families who don't want to appear in the news, and sports leagues continue to make ridiculous and yet not entirely baseless claims such as "Six-second videos of football games are illegal". If you actually care about those things, you would want copyright laws that focus primarily on enabling a flat, open, and fair marketplace for creative goods and services rather than focusing on how we can control the proletariat's sharing behaviors, which would still happen even without actual copyright laws on the books. (I would imagine it would come about via use of nudges and soft coercion but I can only speculate as to what would replace copyright, and it would not be something you would like.)

Re:fuck copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

You ARE taking something away from someone by repeating their information;

To take something away from someone, it would have to belong to them in the first place. The only reason it is theirs is because of copyright law.

If you actually care about those things, you would want copyright laws that focus primarily on enabling a flat, open, and fair marketplace for creative goods and services

A "marketplace for creative goods and services" has nothing to do with copyright. It is not copyright which stops people from being forced to do work.

Re:fuck copyright

[gnupun]

To take something away from someone, it would have to belong to them in the first place. The only reason it is theirs is because of copyright law.

Interesting, so if you were to compose an original poem, who exactly would it belong to, according to your liberated rules? Would it belong to the entire public?

Re:fuck copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

To take something away from someone, it would have to belong to them in the first place. The only reason it is theirs is because of copyright law.

Interesting, so if you were to compose an original poem, who exactly would it belong to, according to your liberated rules? Would it belong to the entire public?

It would belong to anyone who remembers it, as any other kind of knowledge or idea.

probably BS

[Arathon]

It would certainly be a violation of copyright law to repost a broadcast of the game. But taking your own video seems like creating a derivative work, if nothing else.

They would be within their rights to ban the usage of video recording devices inside the stadium, because it is ultimately private property and you've paid to see a performance. They would probably even be within their rights to sue you for breach of contract by making nonuse of recording devices a condition of your ticket price. But failing that, and failing a willingness to sue over it, I don't see how it could fall under copyright law.

Re:probably BS

[gurps_npc]

In the US, you can post a short clip of a news broadcast, which happens to contain a short clip of the goal being scored, without any legal penalty. If it's short enough, the US government laws declares fair use.

Re:probably BS

[Richard_at_work]

You still aren't allowed to distribute a derivative work without the original copyright owners permission outside of fair use or expiration of copyright.

Also note my other posts on performance rights in the UK.

Re:probably BS

[Anonymous Coward]

The EU court already decided that question in 2011:

"Finally, as regards the questions asked concerning the interpretation of the Copyright Directive,
the Court notes first of all that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, prerecorded
films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics can be
regarded as ‘works’ and are therefore protected by copyright. By contrast, the matches themselves
are not works enjoying such protection."

(from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-10/cp110102en.pdf)

Re:probably BS

[rahvin112]

Derivative in what way? Did he take a video of a video or did he take a video of the actual game? I fail to see how anyone could claim video you shot yourself of live action belongs to them in the form of copyright because you are the one that took the video, they don't have a copyright on the live action and it's absurd to claim they do.

Now as someone else said, there may have been contract language on the ticket that you agreed to by attending the game that gave them copyright on all your recordings of the game. I would suggest not attending such games in the future. This could in fact not even be tied to copyright law, this could be some special exception in UK law that gives soccer clubs rights to all video shot of their club. It would be absurd but that's never stopped the UK before.

Re:probably BS

[wonkey_monkey]

The story is about taking video of video.

International Law Reform?

[blueshift_1]

Really what it comes down to is that national laws are starting to conflict with people who have never stepped foot in the country. We as a planet are in need of international law reform with regards to copyright and the variety of internet "crimes". But who'd be in charge and all the important bits will be definitely a cause for concern and probably won't happen anytime soon - yay for more politics. But just instances like this highlight the need.

Re:International Law Reform?

[WaffleMonster]

Really what it comes down to is that national laws are starting to conflict with people who have never stepped foot in the country. We as a planet are in need of international law reform with regards to copyright and the variety of internet "crimes".

No thanks.

Try it!

[Anonymous Coward]

Your lawyers and their lawyers can argue about fair use, while your bank account is drained.

Re:Try it!

[jenningsthecat]

Your lawyers and their lawyers can argue about fair use, while your bank account is drained.

That's why we need crowdfunding campaigns in the 'free' world that are directed at collecting money to fight 'everything you see are belong to us' law suits like the one this bit of nonsense is just begging for. And while we're at it maybe we can crowdfund campaigns to convince people to boycott organizations run by shitheads who try to claim ownership of the whole world by raising their hind legs and pissing on everything in sight like dogs that need obedience training.

BTW, the irony of a crowdfunding campaign to convince the crowd to do something is not lost on me.

Good Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

I mean, when you spend 4 hours and only see one goal, you better milk that for all its worth.

Re:Good Argument

[gnupun]

If they made the goal posts wider, there might be more goals.

But seriously, rebroadcasting the interesting parts, such as goals, is definitely copyright infringement just as rebroadcasting all the light saber fights in Star Wars is copyright infringement.

Re:Good Argument

[jabuzz]

A league match is 90 minutes with 15 minutes for half time, plus any extra time for stoppages. As we are talking about the English Premiership you are not going to get to even two hours unless something rather dramatic happened on pitch which stopped play for an extended period. Something like the Fabrice Muamba indecent and they are exceptionally rare and in this case it was an F.A. Cup match not a Premiership game, and the match was abandoned as a result.

There have been a few compound fracture incidents, in particular the 1996 one with David Busst, took 12 minutes to clear the blood from the pitch and Manchester United keeper Peter Schmeichel vomit on the pitch as a result of the incident.

So basically stop exaggerating.

Re:Good Argument

[Anonymous Coward]

A league match is 90 minutes with 15 minutes for half time, plus any extra time for stoppages

Sure, and an American (or Canadian) football came consists of 4 "quarters" of 15 minutes each, with a halftime break also of approximately 15 minutes. That being the case, you will still be out 3+ hours of your day to watch a game on TV (or substantially more than that if you actually go to the stadium and watch it live!).

Every time I'VE seen a soccer match slated for broadcast on TV, it has a 3-hour slot allocated to it, and it OFTEN runs over that when they extend the game... Speaking of which, I have NO CLUE why that's the one sport on earth that hasn't figured out a the complexities of a little thing called "STOPPING THE CLOCK" whenever there's a delay, so that everyone KNOWS that the game actually ends when the clock strikes 00:00. I mean, it's not like EVERY OTHER TIMED SPORT ON EARTH has already worked this tricky idea out, but hey, not soccer... I guess a sport that Neanderthals could have played has no need to adopt "modern" ideas... :p

-AC

Re:Good Argument

[TangoMargarine]

Hey, at least they're a damn sight wider than hockey goals. Whenever I see a hockey game I wonder why the goalie doesn't just lie down in front of the goal; he's wearing enough padding and gear that it's not like he'll even feel people bouncing pucks off him. And unless somebody can loft it like 1.5 feet in the air, it's not getting in.

Stop watching?

[kheldan]

I dunno about anyone else, but my reaction to things like this is to say 'Maybe I'll just stop being a fan of your team and stop watching completely, how would you like that?'. These people are not making money off posting little vid clips of soccer (oh, excuse me, 'football') goals, they're doing it because they're fans of the team; they're actually supporting and promoting the team for free, so quit yer bitchin' already unless you want to drive your fans away. Fools.

Re:Stop watching?

[Anonymous Coward]

Our response behind closed doors is usually that your threats are empty, because we've done all the proper brainwashing to keep the masses engaged. If you even try to stop watching, your social involvement will suffer, leaving you with compounding problems both at home and at work. The real fools are fans like you, so shut up and keep giving us your money.

fu beta

[Anonymous Coward]

yes you know

US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gurps_npc]

I mentioned the short fair useage rule that applies in the US. Here is the specific law: " In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include â"

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

The use described is non commercial, a video of unplanned events, a tiny and non-substantial portion of the whole, and will not in any way reduce the value of the copyrighted material.

In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[Richard_at_work]

In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.

It might not even apply in the US - "fair use" is a defence, not an exception, and showing only the goals or other significant action in a football match could violate the "substantial" clause depending on how well the arguments are made to the judge.

A violation of clause 4 is also a potential due to the resale value of goal footage for round up sports programs etc.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gnupun]

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

Won't rebroadcasting goals reduce potential market (stadium and TV viewership) of the copyrighted work?

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?

The time taken to show all of the goals combined for an average soccer game will usually consume (much) less than 3 minutes of an (approximately) 180 minute broadcast. I would be hard-pressed to consider one- sixtieth of something to be a "substantial portion" of that thing...

-AC

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gnupun]

The time taken to show all of the goals combined for an average soccer game will usually consume (much) less than 3 minutes of an (approximately) 180 minute broadcast.

Yes, they are inconsequential, quantitatively. I meant, they are substantial, qualititatively, like the best parts or ending of a movie.

This is one of google's definition of the word substantial:

adjective: substantial

        1. of considerable importance, size, or worth.
        "a substantial amount of cash"

I think goals are definitely of considerable importance and are therefore substantial. Therefore, posting goal videos for many football matches falls outside the acceptable rules for fair use and should be considered copyright infringement, just as the copyright owners have stated.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gurps_npc]

You can't make a claim of affecting the resale value of something that does not exist yet, because by definition, that thing is not already copyrighted.

Even if it did, again, a fair use exception would still apply, as a clip of one goal does not affect the sale value of the entire piece.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gurps_npc]

Have you seen a football/soccer match? Some games have no goals at all. Therefore they are not substantial. More importantly, it says substantial portion, not 'important portion'. Substantial almost always refers to TIME, not importance.

Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals. If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value. Even if you do advertise the specific game, one goal in and of itself will not affect the value. You would have to compile a video of all the goals in the game and advertise the clip based on the specific game, and expressly state it contained all the goals, before you seriously affected the value of rebroadcast.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[gnupun]

Have you seen a football/soccer match? Some games have no goals at all. Therefore they are not substantial.

Not so. There are other important (or substantial) portions of the match such as: the near goal misses, the clever dodges, penalties, free kicks etc. I do agree these are nowhere as important as goals, but they are of secondary importance (and still important).

Fans (the only real market for rebroadcasting) do not care about random goals.

I disagree. Nobody posts videos of boring or inconsequential things such as the goalkeeper throwing the ball to a player, or some player passing the ball to another player far away from the opponent's goal post. Goals are rarely inconsequential unless one team has scored a lot of goals.

If you don't advertise which game etc. it came from it will not in any way affect resale value.

I think it would be rather easy to figure out which game is being played (especially because other viewers can post comments about it) unless you are very new to football.

US NFL aggressively enforces copyright

[peter303]

Woe if you post any significant segement of a US football game.

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright

[oodaloop]

That would be a very relevant and interesting comment if we weren't talking about a completely different sport in a completely different country.

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright

[wonkey_monkey]

Woe if you post any significant segment of a US football game.

Yes, even posting a single second of those 11 minutes could land you in jail!

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright

[Anonymous Coward]

I don't know if this will be considered off-topic but I'll post it anyway. Speaking of trying to block distribution of video recordings on shaky legal grounds:

A couple of weeks ago, in Paraguay (South America), a video was circulated heavily on social networks, apparently depicting an extremely powerful and influential local Senator having sex with three young ladies, two of whom were employees of the Senate. A couple of days after the scandal broke out, a Judge made a statement, declaring that one of the three women was a minor at the time of the recording, so anyone posting the video on Whatsapp / Facebook / Twitter / WhatHaveYou would be incurring in child pornography distribution. What the Judge conveniently neglected to mention was what kind of crime those involved in the making of the video had committed. And besides, by that time the point was moot because the video was already in the hands of everybody and their grandmother all over the country.

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright

[peter303]

I've heard a number of states have considered or passed these so-called "revenge sex" laws. That allows police/prosecuter to investigate entity that first posted with subpoena power and go after them. A lot of these revenge sex incidents are crimes of passion and the poster isnt covering their tracks as well as a seasoned p0rn ring.

US Fair Use Exception rule, quote

[Anonymous Coward]

Somehow the idea that a clip extracted from the broadcast of a scheduled match for which seat tickets and live broadcasting arrangements have been made is "a video of unplanned events" seems to indicate that someone doesn't quite understand logic, the english language or both.

Given that a) IANAL, b) I am from England and therefore not familiar with the US law works...
I would argue that
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"
would apply here. Given that some people have already raised the idea of the goals being the major marketing point and revenue stream (some people are paying only for the rights to show the goals) then these short derivative clips of just the goals, albeit not generating revenue for the people sharing them, are having a negative effect on the potential market and value of the copyrighted work and would therefore not be allowed under the fair use rules as described.

Is this actually a question

[Anonymous Coward]

Of bloody course it is. Don't be daft.

Copyright law generally isn't so black-and-white. So no, "of course it is" is not a valid assumption.

I wrote to the BBC about under-researched coverage

[Anonymous Coward]

Hi,

Just read your news report on football audience members posting Vine videos of goals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/28796590

In the article it is claimed "But many supporters don't realise by sharing the videos on websites like Twitter they're breaking copyright laws.Ã

Are you sure that they are?

In a 2011 European Court ruling, the court stated its opinion that it is not possible to claim copyright in a Premier League football match itself:

So far as concerns the possibility of justifying that restriction in light of the objective of protecting intellectual property rights, the Court observes that the FAPL cannot claim copyright in the Premier League matches themselves, as those sporting events cannot be considered to be an authorÃ(TM)s own intellectual creation and, therefore, to be ÃworksÃ(TM) for the purposes of copyright in the European Union.

http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/ecj-upholds-ag-opinion-no-copyright-in.html

As the match is not copyrightable, there is no breaking of copyright laws if an audience member videos this on their phone, and uploads it to a publicly available service.

You might consider revising the article to offer a more balanced view.

IANAL

[houghi]

What a strange question to ask. Seeking legal advice for a British (or perhaps English) situation on a US oriented website where nobody is giving legal advice anyway.

If the person asking the question realy wants to know, find legal advice in the UK.

That said, as long as the clip is no longer than 3 minutes, it is not illegal in itself. It is possible to use the content. Obviously they are fighting it with all their might, bceuase they see it as slipping control on their assets and that is the broadcasting rights.

Just like any other major sports event, they make their gazillions by selling the TV rights. What they do is control of content and just like the MAFIAA they think that if anything that shows anything that belongs to them, they should get a shitload of money for it.
Jay! SPORTS!

I persnaly do not care for sports. Instead of some men running I rather do the unmanly thing and watch fashion shows with beautifull women instead.

Re:IANAL

[jabuzz]

Finding legal advice in the U.K. won't cut it either, it specifically has to be in England as there is a different legal system in Scotland and with a devolved assembly in Wales they are also very subtly different. Complicating matters is that some Welsh clubs play in the English Premiership and home matches take place in Wales.

That said I believe that Copyright is a reserved power, aka only the Westminster (aka U.K. wide government) can legislate on it.

Re:IANAL

[wonkey_monkey]

That said, as long as the clip is no longer than 3 minutes, it is not illegal in itself.

Where is that rule written down?

Re:IANAL

[Anonymous Coward]

Finding legal advice in the U.K. won't cut it either, it specifically has to be in England as there is a different legal system in Scotland and with a devolved assembly in Wales they are also very subtly different. Complicating matters is that some Welsh clubs play in the English Premiership and home matches take place in Wales.

That said I believe that Copyright is a reserved power, aka only the Westminster (aka U.K. wide government) can legislate on it.

The Copyright, Designs and Patents Act 1988 is UK-wide, including NI law. There would be some procedural differences in a Scottish court case but the basic legal questions would be the same. There would be no difference at all in Wales other than the geographical location of the court.

Copyright on numbers

[Anonymous Coward]

Ok, since they can copyright specific numbers I'm copyrighting 666. From now on anybody posting this number online owes me a copyright tax. Replying to this posting with its origional content attached is a republication of the said number, so please include your payment information along with your reply.

Thanks,

Your (not-so)friendly Internet Troll.

Not a problem

[BenSchuarmer]

It's not like they actually score a lot of goals.

Pinch of salt needed

[Anonymous Coward]

They aren't claiming copyright over *all* video of the match, simply the material that has been produced by rights holders. However, most large venues will have as part of their terms and conditions that you are not allowed to film without a license - it's private property, you pay and enter a contract to attend so it's perfectly legal. Is it enforceable? Hardly, but that's not the point about, in my opinion they wouldn't make such a fuss about this is if it was enforceable.

The silliest part of this...

[Attila Dimedici]

The silliest part of this is that the posts they are claiming are infringing actually increase the value of their product.

Also, impractical

[Millennium]

This is Vine we're talking about. Wouldn't you need like six of the videos just to capture the announcer shouting "GOOOOOOOAL!!1!!!"?

Re:Also, impractical

[FriendlyStatistician]

I think they actually get cut off at GOOOOOOOOOOOA--

Wrong question to ask

[Stan92057]

"Is it illegal? What can they actually do about it? Does adding commentary give the uploader any rights to post?"

Contact your local Lawyer only a lawyer can answer Law questions "Legally"

As I understand it...

[jandersen]

A football match is a commercial entertainment show - somebody has invested money (lots of it, in the case of football) in producing the show, and therefore has at least a legitimate claim to the content. I don't necessarily agree with the whole copyright thinking, but if it illegal to film in cinemas, theatres and at concerts, then the same holds for a sports match; why would it be different? It is not something that happens in the public space - these venues are privately owned.

Personally, I think it is a petty attitude to get up in arms over small clips; I don't think people sharing these things online translates into lost revenue - on the contrary, it is likely to make more people want to go to the next match, whereas making a fuss like this puts people off.

Re:As I understand it...

[oldelpaso]

It is indisputable that a film or theatre production is an intellectual creation where the actions are the result of the vision of the writers, director etc. That's somewhat more difficult to argue for a sporting event. Beyond setting the rules, a league or ruling body will have a hard time claiming it had a creative input on a sporting event, unless its a scripted wrestling event.

Re:I wrote to the BBC about under-researched cover

[wonkey_monkey]

Although it's not immediately obvious, the article is about posting (mobile phone or other) video of copyrighted video.

Being able to pause and rewind live TV has made it easier for anyone to film footage from a match.

It's Newsbeat, which might be where they stick the work experience kids. They scale the images on their HTML pages, for heaven's sake!

The law says they are wrong

[Anonymous Coward]

Snippets are 100% allowed for reporting, criticism and so on.

Non-news

[Anonymous Coward]

PGA says no pictures, no video at their events!

Copyright?

[Anonymous Coward]

IANAL, but I do know a little bit about copyright law here in the UK.

Unless the Premier League has some special law that singles them out (not into sports, so not something I've looked into), if it's a video someone's taken on a phone then that person owns the copyright, not the PL.
If it's a clip from a televised broadcast, etc. then it would be the PL &/or broadcaster, depending on licensing (though I'd have thought fair use would apply for something so short as a Vine).

Where they could go after someone who's recorded it on a phone is that if it's stated that people aren't allowed to video matches, then going to a match and videoing it would be a breach of contract. Even then, it'd be hard to make it stand up in court unless that's something the spectators get told before they buy the ticket (though buried in the 'small print' should be enough).

Frankly

[Anonymous Coward]

It is soccer, in the U.S.A who cares?

Upcoming Development in DMCA Fraud?

[Anonymous Coward]

(Yes, I realize we're talking about England and I'm about to pull a switcharoo and talk about US law.) One of the mistakes people (especially here on slashdot) often make when discussing fraudulent/negligent DMCA notices, is the "under penalty of perjury" part. People have the mistaken impression that if HBO's lawyer sends your ISP a DMCA notice claiming that your beer brewing instructions are "Game of Thrones" and they demand your ISP destroy your site, that's perjury according to DMCA.

It isn't, of course, because the perjury part is limited to the DMCA-notice-sender's statement that they represent the copyright holder of the work in question, not what copyright work is actually being discussed. They're just saying they represent the copyright holder of "Game of Thrones," not that they are the copyright holder of your beer brewing instructions. That they mistook your beer brewing instructions for "Game of Thrones" is a seperate matter, and while there probably should be financial disincentives against being totally negligent in verifying before they shoot, there currently aren't.

But this is a whole other matter. If I record a goal, I am clearly the copyright holder of that video, and which video we're talking about isn't being mistaken. If their PR guys wants to lie to the BBC about whether or not it's a copyright violation for fans to record goals, so be it. Lying normally shouldn't be illegal. But if they were to send a DMCA notice about one of these kinds of situations in the US, I really do think that would trigger the perjury part of the DMCA. The whole lying-about-who-is-copyright-holder becomes a very Special type of lying, within the context of a court room or a DMCA notice.

We should keep an eye out for that sort of abuse and try to get someone jailed; I literally mean get a criminally-dishonest lawyer handcuffed and forced into a cell, and have to pay money out of his own pocket to get out.

That would be a new development in DCMA fraud; one that we've long expected to come but hasn't really happened yet (AFAIK). Most DMCA fraud is currently legal, but this (fraudulently misrepresenting who holds the copyright for a work whose indentity isn't disputed) is one of the cases that Congress actually addressed. And that the perp will be committing the crime for financial gain is just a bonus, and should make a delicious impression upon judges who decide their sentences.

In US. Englanders, you should see what you can do, too.

Dear Premier League,

[Ralph Spoilsport]

Fuck You.

Lawyers and judges

[Etherwalk]

Correct. There is no such thing as fair use in the UK. But if the video/twitter feed is hosted in the US then I am not sure where the 'infringement' is considered to have taken place.

The lawyers and judges will be happy to spend hundreds of hours trying to figure it out.

Even in the US, it is arguable how much context, and what kind, you would need to give the video in order to make it fall under "fair use." Even major television studios avoid using game footage without permission, even when they know they have an absolute right to use it, in part because of reputation issues but really because they don't want to be sued. You also have the issue of breaking copy protection by using the analog gap, at least in theory.

Bottom-line: if you're risk-averse, don't do it. Instead, describe it with your pretty words. If you want to do it, pay a copyright and sports law expert in your jurisdiction a few hundred euros to give you his best answer and listen to his advice. Do not get legal advice on slashdot.

Re:Lawyers and judges

[Anonymous Coward]

actually, in sports broadcasts, you can't use fair use because courts have ruled that game highlights are too commercially important.

Re:Lawyers and judges

[Anonymous Coward]

you can fist your own rectum.

for the rest of us life is pretty easy when you ignore the crazy people who think bits of paper shape reality..

captcha = squeeze

Ticket Copyright Ownership

[Etherwalk]

Not necessarily. Suppose the back of the ticket agreed in advance to sell the copyright to any media you take, or to grant an exclusive, irrevocable license, or the like. Then you get to fight about whether that's a valid agreement, but you may not own the copyright.

Re:Ticket Copyright Ownership

[TechyImmigrant]

I think SCO taught us all that copyrights don't magically transfer because some bit of paper said it should. There has to be an actual transfer of copyright and the back of a ticket ain't that.

Depends on many things

[angel'o'sphere]

Are you reposting a taping you made from a private TV corp? Likely illegal.
Are you reposting a taping broadcasted on a public TV station, like BBC in UK or ZDF in germany: grey area. Actually not so grey. You may use it for personal purpose, if your facebook page or your twitter account is already beyond that, I don't know. I assume it would depend on the extend.
Did you post any of the above on youtube, likely illegal ... even if you have your own channel, you hardly can claim that it is for personal (includes your friends) purpose only (because everyone can see it)

Now, did you tape the material yourself inside of a stadium? Then it depends if you had the right to make such tapes at all. You bought a ticket? Is written on it: no photons, no videos? You taped and published anyway? Illegal. No point around it.
If there was no constraint, then it only depends if it is 'fair use' or if you really try to post stuff without the explicit consent of the players and the stadium owner. What the limits here are you need to check with a local lawyer. Perhaps 15 seconds or something.

Bottom line: in most jurisdictives i'm aware of: illegal.

And all that above is a no brainer, I don't get why people even ask such bullshit.

Re:Depends on many things

[FriendlyStatistician]

> Is written on it: no photons, no videos?

I hate stadiums that ban photons. I'm just trying to watch the game, dammit!

RTFA, AC

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, it is. As stated in TFA:

Being able to pause and rewind live TV has made it easier for anyone to film footage from a match.

Clearly they're talking about people recording from the TV, not people at the match.

Read your ticket

[holophrastic]

Have you ever read the back of your ticket? Check out your MLB baseball tickets too. You've agreed to not talk to a small gathering of your own friends about the game too.

Soccer is a scripted dramatic performance

[Anonymous Coward]

I think that's what he's saying.

Re:I wrote to the BBC about under-researched cover

[Anonymous Coward]

Actually its about a personal video made of a large publically attended sporting event that also had copyrighted video made at the same time. The personal videos were not made from the copyrighted video but of the event. Sort of the difference between making a copy of a recording about something and making your own recording about the same topic.

This Generation

[Anonymous Coward]

I have my downloading fun as much as the next person, but are we actually at the point with this generation that somebody is asking a genuine question: "Company paid $3billion for rights to something; can I take it, distributive it massively for free, or is it for some strange reason a violation of copyright?"

I want to concentrate on different words in your post, than everyone else will: "this generation."

Let's remember, a generation ago, there wasn't DRM. Playing video "Just Worked." Old people didn't have the problems that young people do, because when they paid for something, there were neither technical not legal barriers to getting their money's worth. Previous generations lived with copyright, because they lived with "classical" copyright laws, and those laws basically made sense. Back then, the laws had a purpose and a random person on the street could explain the purpose and would probably even say they agreed with the basic idea, even if there was some controversies about the details of how well the law addressed that purpose.

Try that now. Go ahead, tell me why we have the copyright laws that we do. You're not going to be able to keep a straight face if you say anything even vaguely like the answer you would have given in 1994. Most of the laws have jack shit to do with incentivizing creation, promoting progress, etc. If anything, our current laws work against the purpose.

It's not just the generation of people, it's also the "generation" of law and the "generation" of publishers. It's not as if only the people changed; you're talking about people who are dealing with a completely different environment, one that in 1994, only people like RMS saw coming. (And for which they were called wackoes for predicting!)

If this sports programming is DRMed, and if they paid $3 Billion for rights to the content itself, then that serves as evidence for its worth. So where is their $3 Billion payment to the public for rights to use DRM in direct conflict with the public interest -- the very same public who granted the copyright in the first place? All of the reasons we have copyright, are totally undermined by DRM. There's no incentive left to grant it, so let's make one up: money.

If they're in default on the second payment, then why attach so much important to the first? If I buy a $400K house and only pay $200K and then get foreclosed, I get credit for that first $200k but it's not like that stops the foreclosure and all the additional costs that has for me. This company can start to use its $3B investment, either after it pays us to tolerate the DRM, or after it broadcasts the content in usable non-DRM form.

This is especially true in UK right now. They are basically in a DRM crisis at this very moment, to the point that they look absolutely insane for not having outlawed it yet. People are paying for lots of shit that has just in the last few months, gotten a lot harder for them to access.

For that reason, while obviously you can tell I don't think copyright law should be respected when there's DRM (yeah, I think I gave that away, huh?), what I'm really saying is that it's twisted enough that yes, I don't think people should necessarily even know much about it. I live in a landlocked state in the US, and yes, I'm saying it's not weird that I don't know much about maritime law. That situation is where nearly everyone is now, with video copyrights. It's not just that the law became "bad" but that it became so perverse as to become obscure and irrelevant. Most 20 year old people probably shouldn't know that video can copyrighted. The exception would be reform advocates, who go through this process: "Hey, let's change the law so video can be copyrighted, thereby creating incentives. Oh. Oh, it's already like that? I don't und-- oh! The DRM! Right. Well, I know what to do. Let's outlaw DRM, and then a video market could emerge, working something like how books and music do. Why didn't anyone think of this before?"

Either assignment agreement or fixed matches

[tepples]

Not necessarily. A concert is a performance of a copyrighted musical work, and bootleg recording of a concert is a recording of a copyrighted musical work. I don't see how a sport performance itself is similarly copyrightable unless either A. ticket holders agree to assign copyright in any fan-created footage as a condition of entering the park/stadium/whatever they call it, or B. it's considered "choreography", in which case matches should be deemed fixed like in WWE.

Re:Either assignment agreement or fixed matches

[Anonymous Coward]

or B. it's considered "choreography"
What about improv? (of course, a dance troupe that performs improv is still a dance troupe)

Re:Either assignment agreement or fixed matches

[AvitarX]

You'd need to argue that sports is artistic expression.

License

[DrYak]

In pratice, that might be the case. The company is affraid of losing eyeballs (and thus ads revenue) from all the people who woould have wanted to only have a quick recap about the play and would only be interrested into seeing the goals.

BUT

The company has clearly bought an exclusive deal over THE WHOLE play. Absolutely whole 2 half-time, and any extra overtime and play-offs. They have paid an excluse right for perhaps *2 hours* worth of Soccer/Football.
The vines of the goals are only a few seconds-long GIFs (thats the whole purpose of Vine - short snips).

It would be very difficult to argue anything but the fact that the vines are only a tiny fraction of the whole copyrighted transmission. About a thousands of it (couple of secs vs. 7000 seconds or more). The published part is really minuscule, and clearly should be admissible under the fair use doctrine as its only a small part, juste like a quote of a book.

claiming copyright infrigement, would be eactly the same as send DMCA take-downs aagainst a Youtube video like "mash-up of the 20 greatest One-Liner of cinema history" on the grounds that you have copyright over 1 movie from which 2 one-liners are mentionned. (It doens't matter if your movie suck, and the actors' quips are the only thing worth whatching in it).

or trying to out-law a twitter account which has cited the two most funny puns in a book. (even if the rest of the book is worth less than the paper it's printed on).

In the end, it doesn't matter if you got a bad deal and hold copyright on an other wise really bad work and only a few bits of it are popular. You got a bad deal that's your own problem. All the example I gave, and the goal vines are in the same situtation: they are tiny fraction of a work. Showing them is definitely not the same as revealing the whole work (which is several thousands of times longer) and should be covered by fair use exception on lenght grounds only. If your local jurisdiction doesn't allow it, your law is broken and needs fixing.

(or you should sue for ccopyright infringement anyone who blurts out spoilers of book and movie plots)

this is bull, completely

[Anonymous Coward]

There is no such thing as copyright on sport events, plain and simple, you cannot copyright your goal and even less the filming of this goal. What you can control is who has the right to make money off the footage of your goal, if agreed upon prior to your goal.

Just a bunch of walking human turds trying to ruin the justice system with the help of judges, lawyers and politicians.

How to avoid sampling?

[tepples]

Music is at the far right end of the factual creative scale, and US judges have been especially strident and hard-line about music sampling in particular ("if you're going to sample, get license, period!").

So what steps should George Harrison have taken to prevent himself from accidentally sampling "He's So Fine" in his own song "My Sweet Lord"?

Re:How to avoid sampling?

[flopsquad]

So what steps should George Harrison have taken to prevent himself from accidentally sampling "He's So Fine" in his own song "My Sweet Lord"?

That's an excellent question. The short answer is that "subconscious copying" is bullshit and Harrison should have won that case.

It's worthwhile to note that this wasn't a sampling case per se, it was copying of the composition (subconsciously, no less), not the sound recording**. Harrison was accused of taking the melody for "My Sweet Lord" from some back recess of his mind where "He's So Fine" was still echoing, unbeknownst to him. I've listened to the songs, and yeah they're similar. Not so similar that I would find infringement absent evidence of actual copying i.e. knowledge, intent, bad faith, etc.

<rant>
Being a musician myself, I can confidently tell you that with music, there is nothing new under the sun. There is a finite number of note combinations ("chords"), a finite number of chord progressions with a reasonable number of steps (say, 6 or less), and, while both are objectively large sets, only a small subset of both would sound pleasing to the human ear. That set is further reduced by tonal equivalence--you get about the same mileage out of Am and Am7, or Cmaj in 1st or 3rd position.

Pretty much any ordering of chords that you could classify as "commercially viable" has been played, many times, in many different styles, by many people. While ultimately the combination of melody (notes) + harmony (chords) + tempo + arrangement + timbre/tone + lyrics is infinitely variable, it is remarkably hard to write a song that is truly original in chords and melody and sounds decent to human beings.

Music, like science, is a whole lot of standing on the shoulders of your predecessors. And what your predecessors have done is exactly what people in your culture are tuned to like. Unless an artist is bursting with uncommonly rare musical genius, the "new" songs she writes are going to be made entirely from the DNA of the music that came before her. There are only so many ways of doing D - C - G - D, but there are thousands of songs based on just that. Should Lynyrd Skynyrd get to sue them all because, hey, Sweet Home Alabama?

So I think it's shitty to charge George Harrison with copying The Chiffons, especially since he didn't know he was doing it (independent creation is a defense to infringement). Yes, RHCP's "Dani California" sounds like Tom Petty's "Last Dance", and yes Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" sounds like Madonna's "Express Yourself"--but pretty much every other song we've ever heard is, like, spooky close to some prior song if we look hard enough.
</rant>

**I'm not sure how anyone could ever "subconsciously" insert the actual audio from another song into their own, so sampling is always a conscious choice to appropriate another's music. This may be one reason why some courts treat sampling with such disdain compared to (logically equivalent) copying of compositions.

Re:How to avoid sampling?

[tepples]

There is a finite number of note combinations ("chords"), a finite number of chord progressions with a reasonable number of steps (say, 6 or less), and, while both are objectively large sets, only a small subset of both would sound pleasing to the human ear.

The figure I usually quote is 105 million theoretical combinations for a melodic hook of 7 intervals ("8 notes"). Western music uses 7 pitch classes times two duration classes (long or short), raised to the 7th power for 7 intervals. Then I go on to compare that to the size of BMI and ASCAP repertories at the time. So with a polarized, do-nothing Congress and a huge entertainment lobby with dispropotionate influence on elections, how would one go about getting a broken federal law fixed?

Music, like science, is a whole lot of standing on the shoulders of your predecessors.

Except science leaps forward every twenty years, while music inches forward at life plus 70.

and yes Lady Gaga's "Born This Way" sounds like Madonna's "Express Yourself"

Specifically in the part of the latter that begins "So if you want it right now".

but pretty much every other song we've ever heard is, like, spooky close to some prior song if we look hard enough.

On that I agree. Would you like to contribute to my wiki?

I'm not sure how anyone could ever "subconsciously" insert the actual audio from another song into their own

Imperfect audio isolation in a home recording studio picking up the television or radio program that the housemate is blaring two rooms away. The result might end up sounding like the end of "I Am the Walrus" by the Beatles, which contains a snippet of a BBC Radio 3 broadcast of King Lear. If you turn it up at the end you hear Edgar (Philip Guard) in Act IV scene 6: "Sit you down, father; rest you."

They are the eggmen...

HTML image scaling because px != pixels

[tepples]

They scale the images on their HTML pages, for heaven's sake!

How else is one expected to handle high-DPI displays? In CSS, 1px doesn't mean a hardware pixel; it means 1/2688 of the distance from the eye to the display. On a high-DPI display such as Apple's Retina(tm) displays, 1px might span a 2x2 hardware pixel area. In order to make photos look their best on high-DPI displays, a site has to serve them with two pixels per px in each direction.

Re:HTML image scaling because px != pixels

[wonkey_monkey]

How else is one expected to handle high-DPI displays?

By detecting them and serving different images.
By serving integer or at least rationally scaled images.
By not bothering and just assuming 1px=1 pixel, as most people normally do (including grown-up BBC News)

The point is somewhat moot, since the kind of scaling Newsbeat engages in is of the following form:

235px × 132px (scaled to 267px × 150px) (~1.1363x)
200px × 112px (scaled to 204px × 115px) (~1.02x)
625px × 351px (scaled to 645px × 362px) (~1.032x)

Which will look soft on any display.

Re:HTML image scaling because px != pixels

[tepples]

How else is one expected to handle high-DPI displays?

By detecting them and serving different images.

The User-agent doesn't necessarily change for high DPI, meaning the low-res images get served anyway in the HTML. And a lot of Slashdot users browse with JavaScript turned off out of privacy paranoia. So what's the best practice to detect a display's device pixel ratio?

By serving integer or at least rationally scaled images.

I recommended that (1px = 2 pixels). But it shouldn't matter because modern browsers use resize algorithms more pleasing than nearest neighbor.

The point is somewhat moot, since the kind of scaling Newsbeat engages in is of the following form: [102% to 114%]

Perhaps that's more of a "responsive" thing, where images are scaled proportionally to the window width or the width of the surrounding text column. But then that might be just my benefit-of-the-doubt habit kicking in.

Facts are not protected under copyright.

[Anonymous Coward]

EPL is lying and misleading. Football matches are not protected by copyright under European Union law, as they are facts, not works. European Court of Justice ruled on this a few years ago. Only the graphics, music, commentary etc. included in the broadcast are protected, not the match itself.
Direct quote from the ruling:
"FAPL cannot claim copyright in the Premier League matches themselves, as they cannot be classified as works. "

Link to the ruling:
http://curia.europa.eu/juris/liste.jsf?num=C-403/08&language=en

Their standard MO - sue first, ask questions later

[oldelpaso]

The Premier League (and their legal strong-arming outfit Football DataCo) have plenty of previous for shakedowns with a flimsy legal basis. First it was fixtures, over which they claimed copyright and demanded extortionate licensing fees (see example: http://www.bsad.org/0506/repor...). This claim was ruled invalid when tested in court, where in a rare outbreak of common sense it was ruled that fixtures have insufficient creative input to be copyrightable.

The main reason they're going after goal clips so much is that they sell rights to such clips to the Murdoch media. Rupert is using it as one of the carrots to drive subscriptions to his paywalled titles The Sun and The Times. In ostrich-like behaviour the music industry would be proud of, the likes of Vine and 101greatgoals.com are viewed as the enemy, when many brands would kill to get their branding spread so widely in that fashion. Sometimes their aggressive approach to takedowns is at odds with the football clubs themselves. A friend of mine uploaded a clip of goal celebrations from a match he was at to Youtube. The club in question evidently liked it, since they linked to it from their official social media accounts. That, it seems, brought it to the attention of Football DataCo and prompted a copyright claim. His Youtube account was summarily suspended with no appeal, and has never been recovered. This, for a cameraphone clip consisting mostly of crowd scenes.

Then there is the ongoing legal battles over pubs showing games "illicitly". In a manner analogous to the TV blackouts in the US, no match starting at 3pm on Saturday (the traditional time from the pre-TV era) is allowed to be broadcast on UK TV. Since channels covering half the rest of the globe broadcast these matches, some enterprising publicans buy foreign satellite systems, and show the matches to their clientele. The legal situation for this is murky. Purchase of systems from the rest of EU is perfectly legal. The PL cannot claim copyright over the action itself, since it is not its intellectual creation. It instead pursues copyright claims on the grounds of the surrounding branding. (http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/business-17150054) The legal battles will continue, but as with the music industry, the ordinary fan lacks the financial clout to fight a legal battle, no matter how strong the case for the defence may be.

Free Advertising?

[Anonymous Coward]

Even if the posting of goals were illegal, wouldn't the Premier League want these clips shown online as much as possible? Isn't this free advertising?

Or maybe they would prefer the 100+ minutes of no goals during each game being posted online instead.

how was it recorded?

[SuperDre]

If you video the goal yourself, then it certainly isn't a copyright issue..

Two important facts

[Anonymous Coward]

1. The Premier League does not give a fuck about English law.
2. The Premier League does not give a fuck about English football fans.

thanks...

[Anonymous Coward]

for reminding me to post!

Re:

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes. Because fair use is a ***defense*** to infringement, not an exception that makes it not infringement. i.e. "Yes, we copied the and included it in our work. We infringed their right to control copies of the work. But we are allowed to do so because it was for the purpose of and the part we copied is not substantial enough to have harmed the party's commercial value."

Ticket is not a contract

[ODBOL]

I'm as certain as I could be without being a lawyer that there is no contract between the vendor and buyer of a ticket. I *think* that the ticket represents a license provided to the buyer. I definitely need a lawyer (not currently available to me) to determine what sorts of limitations on that license are and are not enforcable, and what sorts of remedies are available to the vendor when a buyer violates a limitation expressed by the vendor.

Re:Ticket is not a contract

[Registered Coward v2]

I'm as certain as I could be without being a lawyer that there is no contract between the vendor and buyer of a ticket. I *think* that the ticket represents a license provided to the buyer. I definitely need a lawyer (not currently available to me) to determine what sorts of limitations on that license are and are not enforcable, and what sorts of remedies are available to the vendor when a buyer violates a limitation expressed by the vendor.

As I re all, all a contrat requires is an offer, acceptance and consideration. Paying for and using one might be construed as accepting the conditions offered. That's be a good questions to the folks on the south side of the Midway.

Not a contract

[ODBOL]

it's contract law (essentially)

I am almost certain (given that IANAL) that there is no contract here, because a contract must be negotiated and must have some consideration passed in each direction. I think that the distinction is more than a quibble, because contract law is quite different from license law and rights of venue owners. In particular, each of these branches of law appears to have different limitations on which sorts of requirements may be enforced, and how they may be enforced.

Re:Not a contract

[larien]

IANAL, but I've studied contract law for Scotland. A contract is an offer and an acceptance, that's all it takes.

Re:Not a contract

[ODBOL]

IANAL, but I've studied contract law for Scotland. A contract is an offer and an acceptance, that's all it takes.

From Wikipedia: "In common law legal systems, a contract (or informally known as an agreement in some jurisdictions) is an agreement having a lawful object entered into voluntarily by two or more parties, each of whom intends to create one or more legal obligations between them. The elements of a contract are "offer" and "acceptance" by "competent persons" having legal capacity who exchange "consideration" to create "mutuality of obligation." (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Contract) It's not obvious to me whether the purchase of a ticket with stuff written on the back constitutes such "acceptance," so I hope that someone with deeper knowledge will pitch in. I have read statements from apparently knowledgable people to the effect that opening a package does not constitute "acceptance" of the shrink-wrap license conditions, nor that use of a service constitutes "acceptance" of everything in the published "Terms of Service" or "End User License Agreement." I have also read that "acceptance" requires some ability in principle for each party to negotiate details. The "mutuality" part is also not obvious. The exchange of money for the ticket and the implicit right to enter the venue at a particular time seems clear to me, but it is not at all clear that there is any "mutuality" in the additional terms stated on the back of the ticket or in the program.

Re:Not a contract

[larien]

The negotiation point is moot. There is the option for you to negotiate the terms with the ticket seller, but there is no onus on the seller to alter the terms if they don't want to.

In specifics - the advertisement to sell the ticket is an "invitation to treat". Proferring money to the seller is the "offer" and it's implicit that the offer is on the terms of sale advertised in the invitation to treat (including terms regarding prohibition of cameras/filming) and the seller accepts the offer. The buyer could place an offer whereby they offer to buy the ticket buy allowing filming. The seller can then reject the offer and/or present a counter-offer (e.g. you can film if you pay some fee to allow filming).

Reading is not agreement

[ODBOL]

You've agreed to not talk to a small gathering of your own friends about the game too.

No. The vendor of the ticket has stated its refusal of permission, but you haven't agreed to that condition. The enforcability of the prohibition depends on lots of subtleties in the law, but it is certainly not based on an agreement.

Maybe is a contract

[ODBOL]

To my surprise, I found some evidence that a ticket does constitute a contract: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

World Cup

[Anonymous Coward]

Fifa sent Vine a cease and desist for any footage that contain on field content.......seems they complied within a day or two all of the embedded clips were 404

http://www.LivePremierLeagueChat.com/Dean.Collins