arstechnica.com — The NFL wasn't happy when law professor Wendy Seltzer posted a Super Bowl clip on her blog from YouTube. They filed a DMCA takedown notice, which caused her to send a counter-notice. And that's where started to get messy.
Mar 20, 2007 View in Crawl 4
nicepantsMar 20, 2007
I want to know what they consider an "account" of the game...because they say that's prohibited too.
pjhurstMar 20, 2007
Fatdog,YouTube did take down all of the content that Viacom indicated, including some content they did not own. Viacom's position is that YouTube is not doing enough to prevent their content from being uploaded to YouTube. Essentially they want YouTube to police the content uploaded instead of Viacom having to find their content and send a take down notice as the DMCA requires.
bionicantboyMar 20, 2007
I don't know if I should digg your comment up for posting a link to the DMCA, or digg it down because the DMCA is a tumour.(Dugg up)
bluenashMar 20, 2007
"It's hard to imagine that a court would do anything but decide in Seltzer's favor, and if that were to happen, it may force content owners to be more cautious about sending takedown notices in the future."Yippee!
nofxjunkeeMar 20, 2007
hansonc: "But this is Digg... no one on Digg wants to read the source when they can read ripoff artists like arstechica and jizzmodo"First off ars kicks ass. Secondly it doesn't matter where you find it if the story links to the real stuff anyway. Plus it's nice to have the write-up about it that puts some legalese into more layman's terms for us that don't speak it.
rfunchesMar 21, 2007
"If you posted video of your 70-0 defeat of the Lions, I think they would have a hard time legally forcing you to take it down. Sure, they created the game, but your 70-0 defeat is unique and could be considered your own creative work. You ran the plays your way and you contributed to the output. That would be like Adobe putting a copyright on Photoshop saying any works created with Photoshop are copyright Adobe. You are using their tool to make your own creative work. It is my contention that the output could be considered your copyrighted work."The plays you picked and the moves you made were your own; however, the video contains models which you did not create (models of the players, the stadium, the jerseys, etc.) so I doubt you'd win that argument. The logos would be infringing trademarks too. The PS example is irrelevant because the tools you use to create your own works (simple shapes, pens, pencils, brushes) can't be copyrighted. (disclaimer: IANAL, this isn't legal advice, the usual disclaimer stuff...)
otaku244Mar 21, 2007
*WHISTLE*Referee: Illegal motion on offense. Five yard penalty. Repeat the down.*2nd and GOAL*And none of this would have been possible if the NFL didn't fumble...
sremickMar 21, 2007
The first rule of NFL is that you do not talk about NFL!
enfenestrateMar 21, 2007
I take the "pictures, descriptions, or accounts" part to mean this:"pictures" - no still pics of the footage can be used without permission. This doesn't mention the exceptions to the rule, but it doesn't mean that the exceptions don't exist."descriptions or accounts" - The actual commentary, made by NFL broadcasters and such, during the game. It doesn't mean that you can't even talk about the games. It means that you can't reproduce the video or audio of the games descriptions, the play-by-play and things like that.