What is Digg?Sponsored by Sony Pictures
Do you believe the 2012 Mayan Prophecy? view!
whowillsurvive2012.com - The Mayan Calendar predicts the end of time: 2012. See the trailer for 2012, opening November 13.
65 Comments
- erator, on 10/12/2007, -2/+64Great article on how online rights are getting out of hand.
- DreKor, on 11/01/2007, -0/+59They're just like real lawyers, but they have more free time to beat the crap out of you in court.
- aliengoods, on 10/12/2007, -2/+52They sent a takedown notice because she posted their copyright notice clip. It would ironic if it weren't sad.
- TheFlood16, on 11/01/2007, -0/+49never ***** with a law professor
- DrewClayton, on 10/12/2007, -2/+50Here's the saga unfolding on the blog itself: http://wendy.seltzer.org/blog/archives/DMCA.html
me likee wendy - inactive, on 10/12/2007, -3/+51"This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience, and any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited."
So here's another observation. According to it's wording, just discussing any aspect of the game appears to be a violation. So does remarking on Tom Brady's hail Mary, or Peyton's incredible accuracy, or any other bar room or water cooler discussions of the games an illegal "description or account of the game"? Do we now need to request permission from the NFL to simply ask "Can you believe Marty went for it on 4th and 11?" Is this post illegal because I made a reference to the Patriot - Chargers playoff game? - benitojuarez, on 10/12/2007, -2/+34Thats never stopped anyone before sneaker.
- Phyltre, on 10/12/2007, -1/+30Pay up, riceman, you've said too much already. That's about $200 worth of commentary there.
- buzzbeebara, on 10/12/2007, -0/+23This is fantastic! Too many companies are using DMCA without knowing what it is, and far too many people are letting them get away with it. I really want this to go to court.
- MinisterOrange, on 10/12/2007, -1/+21For gods sake grow up NFL. Being a Bully is for grade school.
- wendelgee2, on 10/12/2007, -1/+19Btw, was anyone else physically repulsed to hear the NFL (and EA) copyright notice at the end of a game in Madden 07? Is that serious? Can I really not post highlights from my 70-0 victory over the eDetroit Lions on YouTube?
- dhuck, on 10/12/2007, -1/+17not to mention that they are motivated by issues other than money... (hopefully)
- MikeMacMan, on 10/12/2007, -0/+14Is it really illegal to copy a copyright notice? Thats all she did...
- mortigon, on 10/12/2007, -0/+13"And, instead of following the proper procedures outlined in the DMCA, the NFL appears to be choosing to beat her over the head with takedown requests."
Great line...
Good for her, I'm so glad someone is finally standing up to the NFL, even if it's something seemingly small like this, the way the NFL protects it's content is ridiculous IMO. - turpenine, on 10/12/2007, -1/+13im gonna go with no.
- Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+12I'm sure they'd like it to be a violation, but it isn't, and can't be, because copyright law doesn't reach that far -- that's the point Wendy was making in the first place. The NFL owns the telecast and can restrict its redistribution as much as they like, but they have no control over underlying facts such as the final score or the outcome of a particular play -- facts are not copyrightable -- nor over your own personal opinions on the game. Those things are not creative works produced by the NFL.
I think this whole issue may be based on a misunderstanding of the NFL's (admittedly vague) copyright statement, though: I think the "pictures, descriptions, or accounts" they're referring to are the NFL's own, not those which may be produced by fans. If you type up a transcript of the TV commentary on the game, you can't distribute that account of the game because it's derived from the NFL-owned telecast. But if you watch the game, even on TV, and write your own original commentary on it, they have no control over that work because it's not derived from theirs. If you take a photo with your own camera from your seat in the stadium, that's your photo, but if you take a screenshot from the telecast, that isn't. - panique, on 10/12/2007, -0/+11Uh, the notion that Law Professors do not actively practice law is a misconception. The 3-4 I have met teach a couple of courses in addition to handling the case load in their private practice.
I have no knowledge if this is the case for Ms. Seltzer, however I think it is pretty insensitive to assume she has no real-world experience and rarely wanders beyond the walls of her university. - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -1/+10No, that's considered a "transformation" under copyright law, and is part of a centuries-old fair use tradition. However, if you were to make a transcript of what was said by the commentators, that would be a violation of copyright (of the commentators, or the television station, but not the NFL).
YouTube is the table here, and this clip is distinguishable from the Viacom conflict because the clip was posted for educational purposes and is actually not the content owned by the NFL (you can't own a legal statement, and it's not part of game footage). - strictnein, on 10/12/2007, -3/+12I told everyone there would be trouble if we let women go to college!
- pchow98, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I would really prefer to see a punitive action and amount on top of this if the courts find NFL or other content creator to be issuing take down notices frivolously. There need to be a *cost* to every action and should be acted upon in consideration and deliberation. I can't believe the tens of thousands of clips included in Viacom's takedown notice recently to YouTube isn't just a blanket, shotgun method and included materials that have nothing to do with Viacom's properties.
- dclowd9901, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9"I want to know what they consider an "account" of the game...because they say that's prohibited too."
It sounds like you can't even discuss the NFL game without being in violation of the copyright. - pjhurst, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9Fatdog,
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. - WarMacheen, on 10/12/2007, -1/+9I'd really like to see how this one ends and does reproduction of the broadcast include a very detailed verbal description of an actual play in a game?
Is YouTube the table or the net in this legal battle of ping pong - fatdog789, on 10/12/2007, -0/+8The NFL's consent is presumed for such things as discussions, reports of the game, etc.The burden is on the NFL in such instances to prove that they didn't have their consent, because:
1) Such provisions beyond normal copyright law constitute contracts
2) Parties may only enter contracts voluntarily by express action; they can't be forced into a contract just by watching something or sitting there
3) Fair use provisions generally make such things outside the bounds of copyright protections
4) FACTS ARE NOT INTELLECTUAL PROPERTY. They can't be protected. - nicepants, on 10/12/2007, -1/+8I want to know what they consider an "account" of the game...because they say that's prohibited too.
- fotbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+7Being a bully is all the NFL, their players, and their coaches know how to do. They were trained that way through the NCAA, and various state organizations all the way back through their k-12 education.
- fotbr, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Thats what you get for buying a game with Madden in the title. Or one made by EA. Either way you should have expected to bend over.
- squeevey, on 10/12/2007, -2/+8@fatdog There is game footage at the end of the clip. Regardless of the content of the clip now, the NFL appears to have not taken the proper course of action with this. I think it's good for YouTube to be the platform for all this. The reason: because they are backed by Google. Google has the money and brains to handle the self-centered attacks like Viacom's. Hopefully a legal precedence will get set. It's just a matter of time. Now we just have to deal with the legal system getting it's tubes cleaned.
- Sneakernets, on 10/12/2007, -6/+12No. That would violate the constitution.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+6Yeah, buy the OTHER NFL football game. Oh wait, the nfl cheated the public there too.
- barneytoe, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Digital Millennium Copyright Act
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/DMCA - pizpot, on 10/12/2007, -1/+6Umm, vote with your wallet.
- cprincipe, on 10/12/2007, -0/+5I hope she sues their asses off afterwards. And gives all the proceeds to the EFF.
- nofxjunkee, on 10/12/2007, -6/+11hansonc: "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. - actorboy, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6"What do you expect from the United Lawyers of America?"
Everybody bitches about lawyers until they need one. - krazykit, on 10/12/2007, -2/+6The Colts won the Super Bowl! Wonder how long it'll take the NFL to send a DMCA notice to digg about my comment.
- hode, on 10/12/2007, -1/+5Or your feet.
Roundhouse kick! - BionicAntboy, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I 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) - hackattaq, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I go to brooklaw and just for this I plan on taking a class with her next term.
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+3I love it when these bullies ***** with the wrong person...
- inactive, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2I think it's written specifically vague so as to give the NFL legal team as much leeway as possible, this in turn gives them them much more latitude when going after someone, especially a law professor who works for the EFF. Don't be scared if a lawyer gives you a 20 page contract, be afraid if it's only one sentence.
- willcode4beer, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2If she had used the copyright notice as a copyright notice then yes, she would be doing something wrong. But, she used the copyright notice as an artifact to talk about copyright notices, thus fair use.
From section 107 of the copyright act, fair use is
"for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research." - Wyzard, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Copyright covers creative works of expression, not facts. It seems to me that this sort of "all rights reserved" statement is a statement of fact, even though it's part of a larger telecast which on the whole is a creative work, so I'd say probably no.
The text of a legal document is copyrightable, though. In fact, the GPL itself is copyrighted, and distributed under a license: "Everyone is permitted to copy and distribute verbatim copies
of this license document, but changing it is not allowed." (However, the notice saying a particular program is distributed under the GPL is a non-copyrightable statement of fact.) - jlawson1, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2Awesome article, hope she succeeds!
- bluenash, on 10/12/2007, -0/+2"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! - OneSevenSixNine, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1Hell YES! Finally somebody with the "balls" to stand up to the No Fun League!
- raymore, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1This makes me so happy inside. Because you know that these billions dollar industries, such as the NFL, are total ass-backs.
- one2gamble, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2very nice..
- johnkoer, on 10/12/2007, -1/+2If 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.
- rfunches, on 10/12/2007, -0/+1"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...) -
Show 51 - 65 of 65 discussions
The Digg Toolbar for Firefox lets you Digg, submit content, and keep track of Digg even when you're not on the Digg site. Download the official 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is