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

[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

[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

[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.

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.

[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.

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?

[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.

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.

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

[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.

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: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*.

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:"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: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: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: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!

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.