posted by
janrinok
on Saturday August 16 2014, @12:03AM
from the there's-a-reason-that-they-sound-like-killjoys dept.
from the there's-a-reason-that-they-sound-like-killjoys dept.
With the start of a new season, the Premier League is clamping down in "Vines" (short video clips posted to social media sites such as twitter) posted by fans showing goals, due to breaking copyright laws.
In an interview with Newsbeat, Dan Johnson, director of communications at the Premier League, said: "You can understand that fans see something, they can capture it, they can share it, but ultimately it is against the law."
"It's a breach of copyright and we would discourage fans from doing it, we're developing technologies like gif crawlers, Vine crawlers, working with Twitter to look to curtail this kind of activity."
He added: "I know it sounds as if we're killjoys but we have to protect our intellectual property."
This discussion has been archived.
No new comments can be posted.
UK Soccer Premier League Tackles Online Goal Videos
|
Log In/Create an Account
| Top
| 21 comments
| Search Discussion
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
(Score: 4, Funny) by frojack on Saturday August 16 2014, @12:16AM
Really?
The sport is boring enough without trying to damp down fan enthusiasm for a two or 6 second vine loop.
What part of that isn't fair use?
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Username on Saturday August 16 2014, @12:23AM
Because their business model relies on people waiting around just for those six seconds.
(Score: 2) by zafiro17 on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:22AM
Preferring to avoid the discussion of what's fair and not, I'd just point out that as OP stated, this is a horrendously stupid move - getting fans active, engaged, and sharing the word is the best way to get more people to come see the game. Protecting those little videos (Vine sucks donkey balls, by the way - just thought I'd point that out) makes it seem like they have some sort of value, which they don't.
Let's say the lawyers successfully protect the league's right to the videos. Then what? Compile them on a VHS cassette and try to sell them?
Wankers.
Dad always thought laughter was the best medicine, which I guess is why several of us died of tuberculosis - Jack Handey
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:35PM
There's no such thing as fair use in UK copyright law. There are a different set of rules called fair dealing. And under that, one of the exceptions - the only one that could apply - is reporting of current events. But images are excluded from that exception.
I reckon the way to battle this one is to have people in the crowd use camera-phone footage. The Premier League would like to have copyright over that, but I don't see how they can have.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Nerdfest on Saturday August 16 2014, @12:25AM
Yes, how very intellectual of them.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:30AM
This is just crazy that they even have the legal headroom to even try to curtail video recording of something that is a public event. So if a politician says something in public.. hey can't record that.....
Anyway any claims to intellectual and football in the same sentence seems like an oxymoron ..
(Score: 2, Informative) by Hannibal on Saturday August 16 2014, @02:56AM
Actually it's down to two things: where the public event is being held and freedom to contract. Football matches (well the Premier League ones...) are held in stadiums where it's only possible to film the event from inside the stadium due to the construction of the stadium.
Stadia are built on private land and access to any given event is based on the purchase and use of a ticket. As part of that they have a contractual term preventing you from filming the event (or even on their property) without license. This is an entirely legitimate contract term and given the waiting lists for ticket, not one that is putting people off from purchasing tickets. Enforcing a freedom to film in this case would be an interference with the freedom to make a bargain be it good or bad. Given my views on football, any situation in which I am obliged to pay them money is a bad bargain.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by dcollins on Saturday August 16 2014, @04:39AM
"... they have a contractual term preventing you from filming the event ..."
That's a totally coherent line of reasoning, but the league isn't arguing for contractual violation. They're arguing that it's a copyright violation, which maybe it is in the UK, but it really shouldn't be. So either they're making fraudulent public statements or they've managed to corrupt copyright law in the UK in a way it shouldn't be used.
"It's a breach of copyright and we would discourage fans from doing it..."
(Score: 2, Interesting) by Hannibal on Saturday August 16 2014, @03:51PM
You are of course right. In this case they're making an extremely weak argument that putting a clip on the internet is a breach of copyright because...it breaches the copyright on their logo. The European Court of Justice has already stated that a football match itself cannot be copyrighted (http://curia.europa.eu/juris/document/document.jsf?text=&docid=110361&pageIndex=0&doclang=en&mode=lst&dir=&occ=first&part=1&cid=461056 [europa.eu]) but that logos etc can be. What happens when you post a clip minus all the "works" is an interesting question I don't have the time, inclination or money to test.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:21AM
So if a politician says something in public.. hey can't record that.....
If a policeman murders a member of the public, hey can't record that.... [cnn.com]
Why don't the police go around murdering people in wallstreet? Eric Garner was suspected of a financial crime (tax evasion). I suspect that many on wall street are guilty of financial crimes, with far more victims.
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:49AM
a) Is it a public event?
b) It's about uploading videos of TV broadcasts of the event (mobile phone footage of TVs, usually), not the event itself.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 2) by BasilBrush on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:37PM
It's not about people making their own videos. It's about people taking clips from the TV coverage and posting it.
Hurrah! Quoting works now!
(Score: 3, Interesting) by strattitarius on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:40AM
I really wish someone would take on the NFL, or maybe better yet the smaller budget MLS, about what amounts to their EULA: "no portion or accounts of this broadcast may be reproduced or transmitted without written consent".
It is really like a EULA that you can't decline, or accept. And it actually goes way beyond the video. has (or used to) an exclusive contract to all the stats, and you would get noticed if you tried to make stats available, especially if you did it too quickly (same day). But how much BS is that? How can you control an account of what I see with my own eyes? Also what if I hear about it from a guy who read about it in the news? Once it's in the news, isn't something fair game?
I really wish someone would challenge.
Slashdot Beta Sucks. Soylent Alpha Rules. News at 11.
(Score: 2) by frojack on Saturday August 16 2014, @02:54AM
Its a broadcast, its clearly their creation, and you can't rebroadcast it, or play their audio.
But that doesn't mean you can't tell someone what you saw.
It has been challenged:
http://medialoper.com/warning-those-copyright-warnings-may-not-be-entirely-accurate/ [medialoper.com]
Groklaw covered it too:
http://www.groklaw.net/articlebasic.php?story=20070831145639691 [groklaw.net]
When challenged the broadcasters always claim that they really mean is
"This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and THESE accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent."
"These" in place of "the" .
Which means the will never go after anyone describing the game they attended or saw on television. But you can't rebroadcast their broadcast.
Still, unless you upload the whole damn thing to youtube they aren't going to go after You.
Yet they continue to use the same wording every year.
No, you are mistaken. I've always had this sig.
(Score: 2, Insightful) by RedGreen on Saturday August 16 2014, @01:45AM
Incredible how you get it completely wrong parroting the spokesperson. Copyright is held by the person/organization that records the video, the event itself is not copyrighted. Unless there is some new addition the content mafia have managed to get passed into the laws around the world that is. Now the spokesperson could probably claim that there is a no camera/video policy in effect at the games so those clips should not be available that is all they can claim.
"I modded down, down, down, and the flames went higher." -- Sven Olsen
(Score: 1) by canopic jug on Saturday August 16 2014, @02:58AM
I'm sure they well realized they cannot copyright the event itself. That knowledge is probably what's behind the new bans on tablet computers in stadiums [theguardian.com] in some places.
Money is not free speech. Elections should not be auctions.
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Saturday August 16 2014, @06:16AM
In one place, and they adamantly denied it wasn't that, it was more about security theatre. And they aren't banning gopros, or mobile phones with cameras, which are both better than tablets for recording goals.
(Score: 1) by Hannibal on Saturday August 16 2014, @03:03AM
Actually it's not "completely wrong" and you manage to confuse the two issues of rights to film and copyright over material. You are right in your assertion that about who holds the video, however, the Premier League is using the (weak IMHO) argument that broadcasting of their logo is a breach of *that* copyright, in the related issue of the freedom to contract services within the EU:
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-wales-25849670 [bbc.co.uk]
Your second point is also right, about the freedom to film, but not directly linked to copyright, not that the PL would tell you that...
(Score: 2) by wonkey_monkey on Saturday August 16 2014, @09:43AM
The (poorly written, it's Newsbeat) article is about people posting videos of broadcast video. The broadcast is copyrighted.
systemd is Roko's Basilisk
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Phoenix666 on Saturday August 16 2014, @11:59AM
A while back I emailed Disney to thank them for so vigorously protecting their intellectual property. Their efforts had been so successful in keeping their stuff off Netflix, Hulu, YouTube, etc, that my kids (ages 5 and 4) had never seen a Disney program; they had no idea who Mickey Mouse or Donald Duck were and couldn't care less. Consequently they didn't pester me for Mickey Mouse dolls or T-shirts or any other sort of merchandizing, and did not wheedle and whine incessantly about going to Disney World. I blessed them for thinking of me, the beleaguered parent. To save a performance of one of their programs, whose marginal cost is zero, they had spared me what would probably sum to a lifetime cost of $15K per kid. I congratulated them on their brilliant strategy of cultural irrelevance, saying I was sure it would turn out well for them.
A short few months later they began making their titles available on Netflix.
A similar approach might be useful to fans of UK soccer.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1) by Joe Desertrat on Saturday August 16 2014, @05:21PM
I made the opposite mistake. Years ago, I sent an e-mail to the NFL thanking them for hosting free radio broadcasts of their games on their site after MLB had started charging for theirs. While I doubt I was the catalyst for it, the next season the NFL started charging for the broadcasts. I wish I had seen your idea first!