Beta
×

Welcome to the Slashdot Beta site -- learn more here. Use the link in the footer or click here to return to the Classic version of Slashdot.

Thank you!

Before you choose to head back to the Classic look of the site, we'd appreciate it if you share your thoughts on the Beta; your feedback is what drives our ongoing development.

Beta is different and we value you taking the time to try it out. Please take a look at the changes we've made in Beta and  learn more about it. Thanks for reading, and for making the site better!

Posting Soccer Goals On Vine Is Illegal, Say England's Premier League

Soulskill posted about 2 months ago | from the forget-what-you-learned-in-kindergarten dept.

Media 226

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?

Sorry! There are no comments related to the filter you selected.

Pinch of salt needed (2, Informative)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677353)

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 (3, Interesting)

AvitarX (172628) | about 2 months ago | (#47677953)

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 (4, Informative)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678013)

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 (1)

O('_')O_Bush (1162487) | about 2 months ago | (#47678259)

That is not what a Premiere League spokesperson stated in a recent interview with someone from the British media and was aired on NPR this morning. They specifically pointed out the cases where people record or take photos of parts of the game from their phones and post to Twitter/Vine.

Also, interesting to note, the interviewer specifically pointed out the NFL as going through the same type of frustrations. In typical British media form, the interviewer was pandering to corporate interest in focus and language, and didn't make a single mention of the rights of the recorders, which seems perverse given that many Vines fit comfortably under the measures of Fair Use in the U.S.

Re: Pinch of salt needed (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 months ago | (#47678413)

Also, interesting to note, the interviewer specifically pointed out the NFL as going through the same type of frustrations. In typical British media form, the interviewer was pandering to corporate interest in focus and language, and didn't make a single mention of the rights of the recorders, which seems perverse given that many Vines fit comfortably under the measures of Fair Use in the U.S.

IANAL, but while it seems Fair Use might cover a snip from a commercial broadcast or even arguing a private short clip of a performance (or game, if you prefer); assuming the actual playing of the game constitutes a copyrighted work, there is still the contractual issue that often forbids taping the performance. That would seem to me to be the way to prevent distribution of the clip.

Re:Pinch of salt needed (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 months ago | (#47678381)

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.

I do not know what the premier league tickets say; but many venues, sports or otherwise, have limits on recording in the contact for the ticket. Realistically, most seem not to care about the iPhone clip posted to a web site; quite frankly it seems that fan clips wouldn't diminish the value of the venue's film. If I want a copy of a concert or game I buy the DVD, if available, because it is actually viewable in its entirety even if it lacks the shaking, background noise and random commentary of the iPhone version. The best model, IMHO, is the Dead, who said basically tape our concerts, trade the tapes for free, but buy our music, and other items. Seems to have worked out fine for them.

Pinch of salt needed (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678167)

They aren't claiming copyright over *all* video of the match, simply the material that has been produced by rights holders. However, most large venues will have as part of their terms and conditions that you are not allowed to film without a license - it's private property, you pay and enter a contract to attend so it's perfectly legal. Is it enforceable? Hardly, but that's not the point about, in my opinion they wouldn't make such a fuss about this is if it was enforceable.

PL = Honorable Institution. (4, Funny)

goruka (1721094) | about 2 months ago | (#47677355)

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. (-1, Flamebait)

Stargoat (658863) | about 2 months ago | (#47677425)

The Premier League / FA is a bunch of racists. The hitjob they did on Luis Suarez for the use of his non-offensive word negrito (ie blackie, a South American equivalent of calling someone Red) smacks of the worst of Jim Crow. England should and eventually will be ashamed of this.

The Premier League / FA should also be ashamed that they allow so much corrupt Russian money to go flowing into Chelsea. That football club was bought and paid for by the blood of the Russian people. They have allowed Abramovich, the good buddy of dictator Putin [bbc.com] , to run riot with stolen money.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (5, Insightful)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 months ago | (#47677513)

"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. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677595)

Hmm... maybe he should give trolling a go [slashdot.org] ? I know the GIFT theory assumes a normal person, but if you take a person who already is a fuckwad, what do you get? Maybe it cures them IRL.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677985)

..he is employed and works in the UK...

Wrooong!
 

Besides, Luis Suarez should be permanently banned from professional football....

La tenés adentro y todavía te duele...

Professional football should be banned.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677997)

Oh fuck off you manc cunt.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (1, Informative)

Stargoat (658863) | about 2 months ago | (#47678019)

So because Suarez is in the UK, when speaking in his native tongue, he uses a word that sounds like nigger, he is automatically a racist? This word negrito, btw, a word Suarez's grandmother still calls him.

So much for the most cosmopolitan league in the world. It's no wonder that all the best players are leaving for Spain. I never thought the country of Wilberforce would be so racist in the 21st century as to make the USA look tolerant in comparison.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 months ago | (#47678179)

When you are in another country, you abide by that countries rules. When you play in a football league, you abide by that leagues rules. Suarez abided by neither, and thus deserved his punishment.

And again I suggest you actually investigate what he said, because "negrito" is far from the sole term he used, and it most certainly was not used in the same manner as his grandmother apparently uses it.

Re:PL = Honorable Institution. (4, Interesting)

Tyrannicsupremacy (1354431) | about 2 months ago | (#47678205)

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.

GOALLLLLLL (-1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677361)

GOOOOOOAAAAALLLL

"Does adding commentary give rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677379)

It SHOULD, if all copyright issues were handled the same way. This isn't the case, it's a matter of individual clever lawyers and big sacks of money.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights" (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677697)

IANAL, but the way I understand copyright if you add commentary you have rights over that commentary. It is your copyright. Now, sticking your copyrighted work on top of an infringing base is the issue here. The base doesn't become less infringing just because you added your own work on top (creating derived work). You can take your commentary and post it by itself, and nobody would complain (can't copyright facts), but it would definitely have less value than when overimposed on the infringing base. You need permission to _use_ the underlying work before you create derivatives. Otherwise, you'll have create a similar work yourself, by, say, filming your mom kicking the ball into the net, and commenting on that.

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights" (4, Informative)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47677925)

Speaking for U.S. law, you understand copyright wrong. The fair use doctrine [copyright.gov] 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:"Does adding commentary give rights" (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678063)

along with commentary like "Manchester United played a great game today, with three goals including this exciting one by Bob Smith"

Then you're not commenting on the footage. You're commenting on the activity depicted, not the depiction. /Devil's advocate

Re:"Does adding commentary give rights" (1)

SydShamino (547793) | about 2 months ago | (#47678183)

So if I'm commenting on a movie, and I talk about the motivations of the character, it is infringement to show a clip of that character doing something? I'm talking about the actions of the character, not the angle and lighting at which they were filmed doing it.

By your logic, video would never be subject to fair use except when critiquing the cinematography. That is clearly not true.

Rights holders wear hairy asshats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677381)

According to the NFL's voice-over before broadcasts, even a discussion of the game is a violation of their rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. But who is going to go the the trouble of challenging that claim in court? Seems like they intentionally over claim their rights as a matter of policy so as to give themselves a big scary law-suit stick with which to frighten people into doing what they want.

Re:Rights holders wear hairy asshats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678141)

According to the NFL's voice-over before broadcasts, even a discussion of the game is a violation of their rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. But who is going to go the the trouble of challenging that claim in court? Seems like they intentionally over claim their rights as a matter of policy so as to give themselves a big scary law-suit stick with which to frighten people into doing what they want.

The own the idea, i.e. patent, for each broadcast. Each broadcast is a distinct method to entertain viewers and generate money. Aren't business methods the most important patents?

captcha: hubris

Is there a barrister in the house? (2)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 months ago | (#47677385)

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? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677605)

All football games are registered as dance performances and are thus copyrighted.

Professional football players all have tiny tutus sewn under the hem of their pants.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677937)

All football games are registered as dance performances and are thus copyrighted.

Professional football players all have tiny tutus sewn under the hem of their pants.

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678199)

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean

Then you are clearly an idiot, or entirely unfamiliar with any form of football other than soccer!

There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian. Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...

-AC

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (1)

Registered Coward v2 (447531) | about 2 months ago | (#47678423)

Do you refer to association football or US gridiron football? Serious question -- I can't tell which sport you mean

Then you are clearly an idiot, or entirely unfamiliar with any form of football other than soccer!

There are 3 recognized "kinds" of football -- European (aka soccer), North American, and Australian. Of those three, ONLY European football (i.e. soccer) could be reasonably conflated / confused with ballet...

-AC

Canadians beg to differ. Oh wait, they're just the 51st state anyway so you are correct. My bad.

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (1)

jecblackpepper (1160029) | about 2 months ago | (#47678201)

In the UK the term football (with no other clarification) means Association Football. US gridiron football is called "American Football". Rugby Football is called "Rugby".

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677949)

I don't know about "dance" per se, but dramatic acting is certainly pervasive in professional soccer these days...

-AC

Re:Is there a barrister in the house? (5, Interesting)

Xest (935314) | about 2 months ago | (#47678191)

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... [wikipedia.org]

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. (4, Informative)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47677399)

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.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677515)

From a legal standpoint, I don't know that you're correct. In the same regard that I cannot sample a short section of someone else's audio without their permission, I don't believe that your statement that you would be allowed to sample a short section of a video without permission.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677591)

" In the same regard that I cannot sample a short section of someone else's audio without their permission" But you can, you just have to ADD TO/ALTER it.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677843)

No, you really can't (at least in the US). Look at the numerous cases against major hip-hop/rap artists that have occurred. It is illegal. Quoting Wikipedia (which is not the best source, but I do not have time to find you more appropriate ones):

The most recent significant copyright case involving sampling held that even sampling three notes could constitute copyright infringement (Bridgeport Music, Inc. v. Dimension Films, 410 F.3d 792 (6th Cir. 2005)). This case was roundly criticized by many in the music industry, including the RIAA.

Source [wikipedia.org]

So as little as 3 notes can construe copyright, but a soccer goal is perfectly fine.

I'm by no means endorsing that this is the case, merely pointing out that it is fact.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677897)

Should be a question mark after perfectly fine, not period.

Re:Laws vary by country. (1)

king neckbeard (1801738) | about 2 months ago | (#47677711)

Bridgeport is a weird precedent to be using, especially outside of the context of music sampling. Since the UK has at least semi-functional news programmes, I highly doubt that this would apply here.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678085)

I was not referencing specifically Bridgeport. But, if you want to use news analogies, we can do that too, they almost always cite their source for sporting as the holder of copyright (or buy copyright outright/"clear" it beforehand). As such, I would expect that their copyright claim is legit.

Re:Laws vary by country. (1)

flopsquad (3518045) | about 2 months ago | (#47678365)

Agreed. Music is at the far right end of the factual <---> creative scale, and US judges have been especially strident and hard-line about music sampling in particular ("if you're going to sample, get license, period!"). Whereas, footage of a soccer goal is both factual and newsworthy. There may be copyright in the broadcast, but this is not cut from the same cloth as music, poetry, painting, etc. This isn't sampling either; that would be more like "autotune the news." Thus a short goal clip should fall under fair use in the United States.

EU/UK fair use ("fair dealing") law is different than US, in part because they don't have a 1st Amendment. They do allow for news reporting, comment, and criticism [legislation.gov.uk] . However, across the pond their copyright exceptions (of which fair use is one) tend to be stricter and much more... I guess you'd call it "enumerated," in the sense that they list out acceptable use cases. OTOH, they have a way better "compulsory" (-ish) licensing system in the UK, covering a broader range of materials and uses than the U.S. (which covers mostly song compositions and certain broadcaster licenses).

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677735)

In the US performances aren't copyrightable in that way. What's more sports aren't creative anyways. So, bootleg copies of performances may or may not be legal, there is no law protecting sports performances from recording. They just say that during games as a way of keeping the league happy.

So, if you make your own tape that's yours to disseminate, but if you use their recording that copyright belongs to somebody else.

Re:Laws vary by country. (1)

Zontar_Thing_From_Ve (949321) | about 2 months ago | (#47677957)

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.

Not exactly. It should be legal in the USA if the clip is really short, but there are no guarantees. Neither lawmakers nor courts have ever explicitly defined what "Fair Use" means, so if someone says "it's Fair Use" and a copyright holder disagrees, it takes a court case to rule on who is right. And as I always say, if you go to court in the USA, literally anything at all can happen. One court might rule that a 10 second clip is clearly Fair Use and another might rule that it's clearly a copyright violation. I know of a case in recent years where a local court got admonished by an appellate court for making up the law they used in their original ruling so literally anything can happen in US courts.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678149)

INAL:

In the UK fair use is pretty well defined (and its probably the same in the US.) Fair use does not cover what a lot of people think, mainly "I'm using this music in a non-profit funny video" or "I'm using this image for a charity poster" essentially a lot of people THINK it means that if you're not making money from it (lol video or charity) or its not the main focus (background music in your hilarious video) then its fair use. THIS IS NOT THE CASE.

Fair use things such as education, critique, parody and news. While this is not a complete list the idea of it is the following:
If you create a new thing ABOUT a current thing then its fair use (for example a news report ABOUT a song)
Or if its for educational use.

Re:Laws vary by country. (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678175)

A useful chart designed (primarily) for teachers references: http://langwitches.org/blog/wp... [langwitches.org]

Re:Laws vary by country. (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47678197)

Not to mention that going to court to defend your Fair Use rights will cost you time and money. So if Big Corporation X says "that video you posted including a tiny snippet of our material is violating our copyright. Take it down.", you have two options:

1) Take it down. Pro: You don't spend a lot of time and money fighting a lawsuit. Con: You've rolled over instead of defending your Fair Use rights.

2) Keep it up and fight for your Fair Use rights. Pro: You are defending your rights. Con: You can spend a lot of time and money fighting the lawsuit. If you win, you might not get legal fees paid. If you lose, you might be liable for copyright infringement fines totaling many thousands of dollars.

Sadly, defending your rights against a giant corporation winds up being a losing proposition for most people.

Ticket ToS (5, Insightful)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47677401)

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 (2)

Arathon (1002016) | about 2 months ago | (#47677471)

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 (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678067)

If you take your own video, wouldn't YOU own the copyright on it?

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

Jason Levine (196982) | about 2 months ago | (#47678219)

In a similar fashion, you can enter any mall in America and start taking photos of everything in sight. The mall can toss you out and even ban you from ever entering again. If you do, they can have you arrested for trespassing. The photos you've taken while there, though, are under your copyright and they can't order you to delete them (or, worse, seize your camera and delete them). Whether you can use them commercially is another story, but simply posting a shot online would be fine.

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 months ago | (#47677477)

Standard terms of copyright for a performance in the UK - if you video it, you own the copyright on the video, but the performer owns the copyright on the performance so you still cannot legally distribute your video without infringing on the performers copyright.

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

RyuuzakiTetsuya (195424) | about 2 months ago | (#47677807)

That actually doesn't seem completely unreasonable, however, I think it's really petty to go after people who post goals to Vine, instagram, etc.

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677545)

Read the actual story for once.

They're talking about people recording it off the TV, then posting THAT on Twitter.

They aren't talking about people who film the goals with their own cameras, though I don't know what regulations exist for people in the stadiums.

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

QuietLagoon (813062) | about 2 months ago | (#47677649)

Read the actual story for once....

I did read the story. I was merely posing the same question from a differing angle in order to learn how the differing situation may affect the legality.

Re:Ticket ToS (1)

Jahta (1141213) | about 2 months ago | (#47677885)

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?

The ticket ToS [talkphotography.co.uk] specifically forbids any posting of match content. In fact you cannot bring any dedicated "audio, visual, or audio-visual" equipment into the ground. You can bring your mobile phone with you but, if you use it to capture any of the action, nothing you capture "may be published or otherwise made available to any third parties including, without limitation, via social networking sites."

The copyright angle is pretty moot. By buying your ticket, you've signed up to these terms and conditions.

Rights holders wear big hairy ass-hats (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677413)

According to the voice-over before broadcasts, even discussing the games is a violation of the NFL's rights.

IANAL, but that can't be true. It seems a matter of policy to claim overly broad rights so as to have a big-scary-lawsuit stick with which to threaten everyone into submitting to their brutal will.

Is this actually a question (0, Insightful)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677427)

I have my downloading fun as much as the next person, but are we actually at the point with this generation that somebody is asking a genuine question: "Company paid $3billion for rights to something; can I take it, distributive it massively for free, or is it for some strange reason a violation of copyright?"

Of bloody course it is. Don't be daft.

What can they do about it is another question entirely; but let's not delude and be dishonest with ourselves, whatever our opinions may be on morality of the situation or what _should_ be the case, whether taking somebody else's content and reposting is legally OK under current laws in much of the world.

Re:Is this actually a question (1)

Terry Pearson (935552) | about 2 months ago | (#47677727)

... taking somebody else's content and reposting is l...

Your premise is wrong here. "Taking" is not the right word when the other still has their original. "Copying" may be the correct term, but "taking" implies the other party no longer has possession of something.

I know you were not trying to be a copyright troll, but it is the language they use. We must be careful to use the correct language because "taking" has much different historical implications than "copying".

Re:Is this actually a question (1)

mean pun (717227) | about 2 months ago | (#47677947)

You're taking the word "taking" out of context: from the context it was clear what he meant, and it was never implied that the original owner didn't have the video any more.

Note that my use of the word "taking" does not mean the OP doesn't have that word any more.

Re:Is this actually a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678303)

Please show us both an accepted definition of the word, as well as a case exemplar where someone takes something of someone else's without depriving that person of that thing? (unless/until the original person takes it back of course)

The copyright industry absolutely wants to promote what you're advocating because it helps their PR wing do it's job. The same as when they refer to "copying" as "stealing"... It's adspeak for the purposes of misdirection and manipulation, neither of which excuse the deliberate misuse of the language.

-AC

Re:Is this actually a question (2)

pla (258480) | about 2 months ago | (#47677797)

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.

Is this actually a question (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677907)

Of bloody course it is. Don't be daft.

Copyright law generally isn't so black-and-white. So no, "of course it is" is not a valid assumption.

if you're just posting the good parts... (1, Troll)

Kludge (13653) | about 2 months ago | (#47677445)

They may have a point.
Other than the goals and near-goals, soccer is pretty boring. If you post those, then there is no point in actually watching the game and consuming the advertising.

Re:if you're just posting the good parts... (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677601)

Re:if you're just posting the good parts... (2)

Kjella (173770) | about 2 months ago | (#47677737)

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*.

fuck copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677447)

I'm not taking anything from you by repeating information. If you don't like it, don't produce it - there are 7 billion more people where you came from, so you won't be missed.

Re:fuck copyright (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 2 months ago | (#47677739)

You're wrong. You're reducing potential profit from the copyright holders by rebroadcasting information for free. If you were a stadium ticket buyer, or watched the game on TV or DVD, would you be willing to spend the time or the money to watch the game, had you already seen the clips on the web? No.

In short, if you can see the good parts for free on the web, you won't visit the stadium for the match or watch it on TV thereby reducing profit for copyright holders. And copyright is all about preventing freeloaders from reducing profit to copyright holders.

Re:fuck copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677819)

You ARE taking something away from someone by repeating their information; specifically, if you repeat their information in a commercial fashion then you are taking away their job and depriving them of something to leverage in contractual negotiations. It's different from actual theft but still important.

Trust me, if copyright didn't exist, the LAST people to get screwed over would be the people who own the content industry. In fact, thanks to the sharing economy, the content industry has been able to cut costs massively by, say, replacing actual reporters with shit posted to CNN iReport. The people who get screwed over by inadequate protections are independent artists who lack the ability to exploit lucrative licensing opportunities. Today's copyright laws are actually inadequate, despite being also overbearing, since they protect the wrong things. e.g. they're more focused on ensuring Disney can license their copyrighted property to the hilt rather than ensuring new works are properly protected. An indie musician's album is going to sell like shit and get ten cents from Spotify royalties, but Generic Pop Singer #1337 has access to revenue streams far more lucrative than just selling an album.

If you don't care about any of this, fine - continue to enjoy a world where our movies are remake after remake after remake, our news is funded primarily by rich families who don't want to appear in the news, and sports leagues continue to make ridiculous and yet not entirely baseless claims such as "Six-second videos of football games are illegal". If you actually care about those things, you would want copyright laws that focus primarily on enabling a flat, open, and fair marketplace for creative goods and services rather than focusing on how we can control the proletariat's sharing behaviors, which would still happen even without actual copyright laws on the books. (I would imagine it would come about via use of nudges and soft coercion but I can only speculate as to what would replace copyright, and it would not be something you would like.)

probably BS (1)

Arathon (1002016) | about 2 months ago | (#47677453)

It would certainly be a violation of copyright law to repost a broadcast of the game. But taking your own video seems like creating a derivative work, if nothing else.

They would be within their rights to ban the usage of video recording devices inside the stadium, because it is ultimately private property and you've paid to see a performance. They would probably even be within their rights to sue you for breach of contract by making nonuse of recording devices a condition of your ticket price. But failing that, and failing a willingness to sue over it, I don't see how it could fall under copyright law.

Re:probably BS (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47677533)

In the US, you can post a short clip of a news broadcast, which happens to contain a short clip of the goal being scored, without any legal penalty. If it's short enough, the US government laws declares fair use.

Re:probably BS (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 months ago | (#47677585)

You still aren't allowed to distribute a derivative work without the original copyright owners permission outside of fair use or expiration of copyright.

Also note my other posts on performance rights in the UK.

Re:probably BS (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677783)

The EU court already decided that question in 2011:

"Finally, as regards the questions asked concerning the interpretation of the Copyright Directive,
the Court notes first of all that only the opening video sequence, the Premier League anthem, prerecorded
films showing highlights of recent Premier League matches and various graphics can be
regarded as ‘works’ and are therefore protected by copyright. By contrast, the matches themselves
are not works enjoying such protection."

(from http://curia.europa.eu/jcms/upload/docs/application/pdf/2011-10/cp110102en.pdf)

Re:probably BS (1)

rahvin112 (446269) | about 2 months ago | (#47677905)

Derivative in what way? Did he take a video of a video or did he take a video of the actual game? I fail to see how anyone could claim video you shot yourself of live action belongs to them in the form of copyright because you are the one that took the video, they don't have a copyright on the live action and it's absurd to claim they do.

Now as someone else said, there may have been contract language on the ticket that you agreed to by attending the game that gave them copyright on all your recordings of the game. I would suggest not attending such games in the future. This could in fact not even be tied to copyright law, this could be some special exception in UK law that gives soccer clubs rights to all video shot of their club. It would be absurd but that's never stopped the UK before.

Re:probably BS (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678095)

The story is about taking video of video.

International Law Reform? (1)

blueshift_1 (3692407) | about 2 months ago | (#47677469)

Really what it comes down to is that national laws are starting to conflict with people who have never stepped foot in the country. We as a planet are in need of international law reform with regards to copyright and the variety of internet "crimes". But who'd be in charge and all the important bits will be definitely a cause for concern and probably won't happen anytime soon - yay for more politics. But just instances like this highlight the need.

Try it! (1)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677473)

Your lawyers and their lawyers can argue about fair use, while your bank account is drained.

Re:Try it! (1)

jenningsthecat (1525947) | about 2 months ago | (#47677677)

Your lawyers and their lawyers can argue about fair use, while your bank account is drained.

That's why we need crowdfunding campaigns in the 'free' world that are directed at collecting money to fight 'everything you see are belong to us' law suits like the one this bit of nonsense is just begging for. And while we're at it maybe we can crowdfund campaigns to convince people to boycott organizations run by shitheads who try to claim ownership of the whole world by raising their hind legs and pissing on everything in sight like dogs that need obedience training.

BTW, the irony of a crowdfunding campaign to convince the crowd to do something is not lost on me.

Good Argument (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677483)

I mean, when you spend 4 hours and only see one goal, you better milk that for all its worth.

Re:Good Argument (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 2 months ago | (#47677659)

If they made the goal posts wider, there might be more goals.

But seriously, rebroadcasting the interesting parts, such as goals, is definitely copyright infringement just as rebroadcasting all the light saber fights in Star Wars is copyright infringement.

Stop watching? (2)

kheldan (1460303) | about 2 months ago | (#47677553)

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.

fu beta (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677559)

yes you know

US Fair Use Exception rule, quote (1)

gurps_npc (621217) | about 2 months ago | (#47677627)

I mentioned the short fair useage rule that applies in the US. Here is the specific law: " In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include â" [copyright.gov]

(1) the purpose and character of the use, including whether such use is of a commercial nature or is for nonprofit educational purposes;

(2) the nature of the copyrighted work;

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

The use described is non commercial, a video of unplanned events, a tiny and non-substantial portion of the whole, and will not in any way reduce the value of the copyrighted material.

In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote (1)

Richard_at_work (517087) | about 2 months ago | (#47677709)

In the US, they have no right to stop you from making a vine of it. But that may not apply to England.

It might not even apply in the US - "fair use" is a defence, not an exception, and showing only the goals or other significant action in a football match could violate the "substantial" clause depending on how well the arguments are made to the judge.

A violation of clause 4 is also a potential due to the resale value of goal footage for round up sports programs etc.

US Fair Use Exception rule, quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677865)

Somehow the idea that a clip extracted from the broadcast of a scheduled match for which seat tickets and live broadcasting arrangements have been made is "a video of unplanned events" seems to indicate that someone doesn't quite understand logic, the english language or both.

Given that a) IANAL, b) I am from England and therefore not familiar with the US law works...
I would argue that
"(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work"
would apply here. Given that some people have already raised the idea of the goals being the major marketing point and revenue stream (some people are paying only for the rights to show the goals) then these short derivative clips of just the goals, albeit not generating revenue for the people sharing them, are having a negative effect on the potential market and value of the copyrighted work and would therefore not be allowed under the fair use rules as described.

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote (1)

gnupun (752725) | about 2 months ago | (#47677887)

(3) the amount and substantiality of the portion used in relation to the copyrighted work as a whole; and

Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?

(4) the effect of the use upon the potential market for or value of the copyrighted work. "

Won't rebroadcasting goals reduce potential market (stadium and TV viewership) of the copyrighted work?

Re:US Fair Use Exception rule, quote (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678129)

Aren't goals a substantial portion of a football match?

The time taken to show all of the goals combined for an average soccer game will usually consume (much) less than 3 minutes of an (approximately) 180 minute broadcast. I would be hard-pressed to consider one- sixtieth of something to be a "substantial portion" of that thing...

-AC

US NFL aggressively enforces copyright (1, Insightful)

peter303 (12292) | about 2 months ago | (#47677667)

Woe if you post any significant segement of a US football game.

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright (2)

oodaloop (1229816) | about 2 months ago | (#47678053)

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:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678133)

Woe if you post any significant segment of a US football game.

Yes, even posting a single second of those 11 minutes [mediaite.com] could land you in jail!

Re:US NFL aggressively enforces copyright (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678241)

I don't know if this will be considered off-topic but I'll post it anyway. Speaking of trying to block distribution of video recordings on shaky legal grounds:

A couple of weeks ago, in Paraguay (South America), a video was circulated heavily on social networks, apparently depicting an extremely powerful and influential local Senator having sex with three young ladies, two of whom were employees of the Senate. A couple of days after the scandal broke out, a Judge made a statement, declaring that one of the three women was a minor at the time of the recording, so anyone posting the video on Whatsapp / Facebook / Twitter / WhatHaveYou would be incurring in child pornography distribution. What the Judge conveniently neglected to mention was what kind of crime those involved in the making of the video had committed. And besides, by that time the point was moot because the video was already in the hands of everybody and their grandmother all over the country.

I wrote to the BBC about under-researched coverage (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47677983)

Hi,

Just read your news report on football audience members posting Vine videos of goals.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/newsbeat/28796590

In the article it is claimed "But many supporters don't realise by sharing the videos on websites like Twitter they're breaking copyright laws.Ã

Are you sure that they are?

In a 2011 European Court ruling, the court stated its opinion that it is not possible to claim copyright in a Premier League football match itself:

So far as concerns the possibility of justifying that restriction in light of the objective of protecting intellectual property rights, the Court observes that the FAPL cannot claim copyright in the Premier League matches themselves, as those sporting events cannot be considered to be an authorÃ(TM)s own intellectual creation and, therefore, to be ÃworksÃ(TM) for the purposes of copyright in the European Union.

http://the1709blog.blogspot.co.uk/2011/10/ecj-upholds-ag-opinion-no-copyright-in.html

As the match is not copyrightable, there is no breaking of copyright laws if an audience member videos this on their phone, and uploads it to a publicly available service.

You might consider revising the article to offer a more balanced view.

Re:I wrote to the BBC about under-researched cover (1)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678367)

Although it's not immediately obvious, the article is about posting (mobile phone or other) video of copyrighted video.

Being able to pause and rewind live TV has made it easier for anyone to film footage from a match.

It's Newsbeat, which might be where they stick the work experience kids. They scale the images on their HTML pages, for heaven's sake!

IANAL (0)

houghi (78078) | about 2 months ago | (#47678051)

What a strange question to ask. Seeking legal advice for a British (or perhaps English) situation on a US oriented website where nobody is giving legal advice anyway.

If the person asking the question realy wants to know, find legal advice in the UK.

That said, as long as the clip is no longer than 3 minutes, it is not illegal in itself. It is possible to use the content. Obviously they are fighting it with all their might, bceuase they see it as slipping control on their assets and that is the broadcasting rights.

Just like any other major sports event, they make their gazillions by selling the TV rights. What they do is control of content and just like the MAFIAA they think that if anything that shows anything that belongs to them, they should get a shitload of money for it.
Jay! SPORTS!

I persnaly do not care for sports. Instead of some men running I rather do the unmanly thing and watch fashion shows with beautifull women instead.

Re:IANAL (2)

jabuzz (182671) | about 2 months ago | (#47678335)

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 (2)

wonkey_monkey (2592601) | about 2 months ago | (#47678377)

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?

Copyright on numbers (0)

Anonymous Coward | about 2 months ago | (#47678113)

Ok, since they can copyright specific numbers I'm copyrighting 666. From now on anybody posting this number online owes me a copyright tax. Replying to this posting with its origional content attached is a republication of the said number, so please include your payment information along with your reply.

Thanks,

Your (not-so)friendly Internet Troll.

Not a problem (1)

BenSchuarmer (922752) | about 2 months ago | (#47678163)

It's not like they actually score a lot of goals.

The silliest part of this... (1)

Attila Dimedici (1036002) | about 2 months ago | (#47678227)

The silliest part of this is that the posts they are claiming are infringing actually increase the value of their product.

Also, impractical (0)

Millennium (2451) | about 2 months ago | (#47678257)

This is Vine we're talking about. Wouldn't you need like six of the videos just to capture the announcer shouting "GOOOOOOOAL!!1!!!"?

Wrong question to ask (1)

Stan92057 (737634) | about 2 months ago | (#47678313)

"Is it illegal? What can they actually do about it? Does adding commentary give the uploader any rights to post?"

Contact your local Lawyer only a lawyer can answer Law questions "Legally"

As I understand it... (1)

jandersen (462034) | about 2 months ago | (#47678317)

A football match is a commercial entertainment show - somebody has invested money (lots of it, in the case of football) in producing the show, and therefore has at least a legitimate claim to the content. I don't necessarily agree with the whole copyright thinking, but if it illegal to film in cinemas, theatres and at concerts, then the same holds for a sports match; why would it be different? It is not something that happens in the public space - these venues are privately owned.

Personally, I think it is a petty attitude to get up in arms over small clips; I don't think people sharing these things online translates into lost revenue - on the contrary, it is likely to make more people want to go to the next match, whereas making a fuss like this puts people off.

Load More Comments
Slashdot Login

Need an Account?

Forgot your password?