What Ever Happened to the First Amendment?

Listen careful to the copyright notice on this football broadcast... You can't share your "account" this game without the NFL's consent.

What ever happened to "fair use?"

If you're as annoyed as I am about this, check out Defend Fair Use, which is backed by the biggest software companies (Google, Microsoft, etc.). Here's part of a complaint they filed with the FTC:

Every time an American consumer opens a book, plays a DVD, or watches a wide range of broadcast programs he or she is confronted by strong language warning of what they are not allowed to do with that product. By design or effect, many of these warnings are misleading and harmful to millions of American consumers, customers, and businesses. These ubiquitous statements often include gross misrepresentations of federal law and characterize as unlawful acts that are explicitly permitted by law. Many such warnings forbid unauthorized copying and sharing of any part of their works, even when such copying or sharing is fair use and is permitted by law and in fact by the Constitution itself.

via TechCrunch.

Comments

[rubinass]

I can't see the NFL statement b/c it's blocked by my work (sheesh), but it sounds like they are really over reaching here.

Facts are not copyrightable in the first place (see http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/International_News_Service_v._Associated_Press explaining the "hot news" doctrine).

Inasmuch as a recounting of an NFL game is a recounting the facts that happened during the game, there is no copyright in that information. There have been other cases (National Basketball Ass'n v. Motorola, Inc) that back this up.

It only applies to facts, though, not authored content.

[rubinass]

PS, I'm not really sure this is a first amendment issue as it is a copyright issue.

[Fred]

The NFL has even demanded that their copyright notice is under copyright and be taken down:

http://www.boingboing.net/2007/02/14/nfl-says-dont-copy-o.html

It's just ridiculous. As rubinass says, you can't copyright facts. We have too much corporately sanctioned news reporting as it is.

[Old Timer Too]

First Amendment deals freedom of speech and freedom of the press. Fair Use policy under copyright law provides that a person can use a portion of copyrighted material in a number of ways, including in the press, here, and personally.

I find that the idea of a copyright notice being copyrighted (legally) is likely no copyrightable for one major reason - it does not represent a new creation. This is a little like "prior art" in patent law.

While facts, in and of themselves, cannot be copyrighted, the context in which they are presented can be, which would include presentation in a table.

However, again, prior art may make the copyright invalid, inasmuch as the table may be a product of a software program, such as Microsoft's Excel.

In other words, the context itself my not be copyrightable, as it is the product of another entity. If the table is presented as part of a broadcast or on a web page or in printed material, then fair use enters the picture.

I am not an attorney nor am I an expert on copyright law.

Bottom line IMNSHO is that yes, these folks have overstepped their legal rights and infringed upon the rights of the viewers and readers.