DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights
from the ah,-irony dept
We've covered way too many bogus DMCA takedown notices, but sometimes new ones stand out for being extra special. Wendy Seltzer, a law professor who used to work for the EFF and who founded the awesome Chilling Effects clearinghouse for providing an archive of various takedown notices, has apparently received her very own first DMCA takedown notice (found via Boing Boing). Seltzer posted a snippet from the Superbowl for her students to see. Not just any snippet, mind you, but the snippet where its announced: "This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited." She posted it as an example of a copyright holder exaggerating its rights -- as the NFL cannot ban all of the things they ban in that statement. Yes, this is getting more and more ironic. Take a moment to think this through for the layer upon layer of absurdity. A law professor puts up a short clip for educational purposes (fair use allows both short clips and educational uses of content) for the sake of showing how the NFL exaggerates its copyright control -- and the NFL responds by then sending a DMCA takedown notice to better highlight how they not only exaggerate their claims, but then misuse the law to shut down fair use as well. Somehow, though, I doubt the NFL planned to help Seltzer demonstrate how the law is abused by trying to takedown her example of how they were abusing the law (got that?). Either way, it seems that the NFL is helping prove Seltzer's point.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
P.S. if I'm not to late FIRST
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Revenge
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL is pissing me off as of late.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
There should be a fine.
Oh, I keep forgetting. It's the United Corporate States now. Screw the 'people.'
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not so clear-cut
With respect to number 2, she may have an argument that the posting was for purposes of criticism -- in the context of this page -- but from the standpoint of YouTube, who is hosting it without the critical context, it would very likely be infringement. Perhaps if Wendy hosted the clip herself this would have been less of an issue.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Not so clear-cut
Notwithstanding the provisions of sections 106 and 106A, the fair use of a copyrighted work, including such use by reproduction in copies or phonorecords or by any other means specified by that section, for purposes such as criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching (including multiple copies for classroom use), scholarship, or research, is not an infringement of copyright. In determining whether the use made of a work in any particular case is a fair use the factors to be considered shall include —
(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.
Posting to You-Tube could certainly fall under "comment", possibly "news", and possibly "teaching" (it's unclear if the walls of a classroom define that ideal).
Also, the 4 criteria have been met, in that it was a non-commercial, a fraction of a percent of the overall protected work, and the effect did not damage the value of the protected work. Criteria 2 is a bit nebulous, but using the portion of the telecast which describes copyright would certainly seem to be of an allowable nature.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow. So by that rationale, is water cooler talk a punishable offense?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
An account of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: An account of the game.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Not protectable material
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
DMCA
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Carlos Mencia Uses DMCA to Silence Critics, Too
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
NFL rampage
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I love Irony...
Worst. Joke. Ever.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I said it before
We MIGHT not be buying their sh*t but we are thinking about them, thus, (and this is the marine in me talking) keeping us away from say the NHL. I know it sounds trite, but think about it, if you know people will still watch your games what does it hurt you to lose a fraction of your viewership so that way potential viewers of your competitors are not actually watching said same?
Basically, I think they are trying to ButtF*ck the other sports.
But that's just me.
RSTR
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: I said it before
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Didn't the MLB (US baseball organization) lose thi
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Take em down!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]