Who Cares If Pamela Jones Is Real Or Not, As Long As Her Information Is Accurate?

DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights

from the ah,-irony dept

Thu, Feb 15th 2007 2:55pm — Mike Masnick

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

18 Comments

If you liked this post, you may also be interested in...

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Justin Pakosky, 15 Feb 2007 @ 3:14pm

got to love it i cant figure out what is better not being aloud to say the super b*wl, or MY DAMN DNA being patented

P.S. if I'm not to late FIRST
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake, 15 Feb 2007 @ 3:51pm

Revenge
Perhaps a grass-roots, non-violent revolution is in order. Because (in this case) the NFL is demanding we receive consent before engaging in "descriptions or accounts", let's all submit requests for permission to talk about the game and swamp their legal department.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:18pm

I actually laughed when reading this. That doesn't happen often.

NFL is pissing me off as of late.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:21pm

There should be a fine.
Why is there no penalty for improper use of DMCA takedown notices?

Oh, I keep forgetting. It's the United Corporate States now. Screw the 'people.'
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Lewis Baumstark (profile), 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:25pm

Not so clear-cut
As the subject says, the takedown may very well be valid here. There are actually two separate fair use questions here:
1. Using the clip for classroom purposes. Distribution is limited to the students in the course. This is unquestionably protected by fair use.
2. Posting it to YouTube. The use here goes beyond academic study and morphs into wide-scale distribution. It is less clear that fair use would apply here.
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 thread ]
Monoto, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:28pm

"Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent, is prohibited."

Wow. So by that rationale, is water cooler talk a punishable offense?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
DMM, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:35pm

Not protectable material
The clip that Wendy posted is most likely not protectable at all because it is a functional, legal statement. Legal forms, like divorce forms, forms for incorporation of a business, are generally not copyrightable because they serve a primarily functional purpose. The same is true the the NFL's on-air statement. So the bottom line is that the NFL appears to be abusing the DMCA just like many others.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Michael TheZorch Haney, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:36pm

DMCA
The DMCA has to go. Its not doing any good to protect legitimate copyright holders and is giving the real criminals the weapon they need to stifle competition and exercise so called rights they really have.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:37pm

Carlos Mencia Uses DMCA to Silence Critics, Too
Carlos Mencia recently used DMCA takedowns to silence a critical video showing him stealing material. Details here: http://copyrightings.blogspot.com/2007/02/carlos-mencia-uses-dmca-to-silence.html
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Beefcake, 15 Feb 2007 @ 4:46pm

Re: Not so clear-cut
But there are more than just classroom and criticism allowances for fair use. From section 107 of U.S. Copyright Law (sourced from http://www.copyright.gov/title17/92chap1.html#107):

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 thread ]
Erv, 15 Feb 2007 @ 5:27pm

NFL rampage
first church groups and now educators, the NFL isn't making goof pr for itself lately. As much as they advertise themselves helping The United Way I would think they could pick and choose their battles a bit smarter.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 15 Feb 2007 @ 5:34pm

An account of the game.
Does this mean saying publicly that "The Colts won" is prohibited?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Andrew, 15 Feb 2007 @ 7:33pm

Re: An account of the game.
Yes, it does. You now owe the NFL $50. Oops... I owe them $50 for saying NFL... DARN - $100 now...
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Stute, 15 Feb 2007 @ 7:35pm

I love Irony...
It just makes me so rony. :-

Worst. Joke. Ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
rstr5105, 15 Feb 2007 @ 11:30pm

I said it before
I said it on Superfuckingbowl(copyright 2007 rstr5105) :) sunday and I say it again, The N*L Is using the Streisand effect. They don't care about good/bad pr, what they want (at least IMHO) Is for all of us to be here right now, talking about them.

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 thread ]
dataGuy, 16 Feb 2007 @ 6:12am

Re: I said it before
Semper Fi rstr5105!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
The Original Just Me, 16 Feb 2007 @ 9:04am

Didn't the MLB (US baseball organization) lose thi
I thought for sure the court ruled that once the sporting event happened all events in the game were a public matter of record.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
NotAFan, 17 Feb 2007 @ 10:04am

Take em down!
So they file false DMCA claims. I think the law has things in it to punish that act. I don't watch those stupid drug games anyway. Roid monkeys they be...
[ link to this | view in thread ]