NFL Still Thinks It Can Tell News Organizations How They Can Report The News

from the that's-not-how-this-all-works dept

Thu, Sep 6th 2007 12:45am — Mike Masnick

Back in July, we couldn't figure out how the NFL could get away with telling news organizations that they could only put 45 seconds of video online that had either game clips or videos of players. This made no sense. The NFL does not have any right to determine how reporters report the news. If they conduct their own interviews with players or film their own footage, they should be able to broadcast as much of it as they feel appropriate. They also shouldn't (as demanded by the NFL) have to link back to the NFL's official website. While these may be what the NFL wants, it has no way of actually enforcing this -- as news reporters don't need the NFL's permission to broadcast an interview they filmed with a player. However, it still seems like broadcasters aren't up to challenging the NFL on this bogus rule. Reader Jon writes in to let us know that the NFL (how kind of it) has exempted NBC, CBS, Fox and ESPN from these rules. However, the reasoning isn't that the NFL never had the right to demand such things of news organizations in the first place -- but that these TV networks have already paid fees to the NFL averaging more than $3 billion a year. Therefore, the NFL figures, they might as well post slightly more video online. Of course, this is still ridiculous. If any news organization wants to film their own interviews with players and broadcast them online, that's between the player being interviewed and the news organization. The NFL should have no say at all over what a news organization can or cannot post on their website. Any news organization going along with these restrictions should have its journalistic integrity questioned, since they're allowing the subjects of a story to dictate how they present the news.

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

Filed Under: control, fair use, news, nfl, reporting
Companies: nfl

30 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Mike F.M, 6 Sep 2007 @ 1:27am

Another reason?
Surely these news companies must have law-savvy people working for them that know these 'restrictions' the NFL are trying to enforce aren't law.

There must be another reason behind this.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
EFM, 6 Sep 2007 @ 1:56am

Do these NFL "rules" only affect news organizations or do they carry over to bloggers as well?

I guess a blogger with a camcorder and access to youtube.com may also fall under this "NEWS" category and get DMCA take-down notices to remove their own filmed content... because NFL also owns that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Feech, 6 Sep 2007 @ 2:13am

I think they do have the right to determine how the video is displayed. For example I know that when HBO has a championship fight on a Sat nite lets say, ESPN can only show so much of the fight footage when they are reporting on the winner later that night. I don't know if this is anything new
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Q, 6 Sep 2007 @ 2:44am

I have to admit this is a BS rule. But the NFL does have the ability to enforce this. It's kind of hard to post a video of an interview when the NFL has denied you access to the player and/or the team has a whole. The only hay to get that interview is by doing it away from the teams HQ. How many players do you think are going to be willing to do that?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
AdamG, 6 Sep 2007 @ 2:55am

Doesn't matter, really. Show some video of any schmuck off the street with a stockpile of guns and drugs driving recklessly while killing dogs, and I'm sure the general public would say, "hey, that guy must be from the NFL!"
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Les B. Labbauf, 6 Sep 2007 @ 3:21am

NFL Has Bullied Networks Before
Just look at what the NFL did to ESPN getting them to cancel the "Fantasy" series PLAYMAKERS. It's interesting that Professional Football "Soap Opera" that parodied the NFL was canceled due to "Bad Ratings". I am sure it wasn't because it was a reflection of what was actually happening in the NFL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sean, 6 Sep 2007 @ 4:20am

Oh really???
Of course the NFL can't stop reporters from reporting the news, but how do you think the news organisations got the footage of the game in the first place? By signing on the dotted line to get their cameras into the stadium of course (or to access the shared resources). As for conducting off-stadium interviews, I reckon "no unauthorised interviews" are a standard clause in player contracts nowadays.
And this is SO off-topic, this belongs in an NFL forum, not a techie one. I couldn't care less about NFL and now I've wasted 5 minutes reading this rubbish and worse, replying.
ach!
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Aedan, 6 Sep 2007 @ 4:24am

NFL
Who cares about the NFL anyway? They're just a bunch of overgrown crybabies. I quit watching football after I discovered a REAL sport...soccer.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Brett, 6 Sep 2007 @ 4:44am

Brilliant
If I were a politician caught in a scandal I would demand the same thing. Claim copyright over your appearance on a sting video and insist that no more than 3 seconds of it are shown on TV. Wouldn't be anymore real, but if they give in to the NFL they might just give in to you.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Kevin, 6 Sep 2007 @ 4:51am

Re:
For example I know that when HBO has a championship fight on a Sat nite lets say, ESPN can only show so much of the fight footage when they are reporting on the winner later that night. I don't know if this is anything new

That's because ESPN has to use HBO's footage of the event to report the news. They're usually allowed to use a portion of it (I believe that it falls under the Fair Use doctrine), but they can't replay the whole thing in it's entirety. And more to the point, if they have to go to HBO to get the footage then HBO gets to tell them how much of it can be used and in what way.

What the article is talking about is the NFL trying to put restrictions on the media on how they use their own footage of games and players. That's something that they have no right to do whatsoever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Gary, 6 Sep 2007 @ 5:27am

NFL rules
Actually, the NFL may have a little more control over the videos. I seems to me that starting last year they banned local media video cameras from the game. So the only game footage comes from the NFL.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sam Cornwell, 6 Sep 2007 @ 5:46am

They have every right
Just like you can't walk into a theater and video tape a movie, you can't do that with an NFL game.

Any press in the stadium must follow guidelines to what they can and can not show, or they won't be allowed in.

As is stated above, interviews that are done on a players own time and are allowed by their contract are free game.

The NFL is an entertainment business.

(and unsubscribe...)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:13am

It really isn't a legal issue, if the media wants access to the "news" which is the game and the players, they have to agree to play by the NFL's rules. If someone in the media decided to rent a plane and fly over the stadium and film the game, there probably isn't much the NFL could do about it. Course, you might have Homeland Defense coming after you.

There are folks that take pictures of Cubs games from the rooftop across from Wrigley (greatest ballpark ever) and there isn't anything MLB can do about it. Course, if it pissed them off enough, they would just buy the building.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:20am

my view on this.
Saying they can not film in areas where they can legally enforce it is legal, and they should have the right to do so. However, by saying it is limited and defining what those limits are, then it becomes an issue. When limiting rather than blocking, the NFL is effectivly saying it owns the video that another records. This is NOT protected by copyright (well not the NFL's copyright atleast), so that is a non issue (and if it is made an issue, it shouldn't be), though weither or not they have rights to limit what happens to the film is somewhat iffy if contracts are involved.

With the 45 second rule, if it is from the offical broadcast, then they have no rights to regulate fair use, so they can't tell bloggers to remove something protected by fair use 24 hours after uploading it, or limit all footage to 45 seconds. They may have the right to prevent camras in the stadium but they can not claim ownership of the copyright of something that is filmed not by them.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Dan, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:24am

Re: my view on this.
Just to clarify, last sentience with camras is a different point than the TV broadcast, which this point deals with using camras to get footage, rather than offical footage.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:25am

Dan, it isn't a legal issue, its more of a business conduct issue. If someone decides to ignore the NFL's demand, I would imagine they would have their press pass pulled pretty quickly. This isn't anything new and its not limited to sports.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
realfootballplayer, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:32am

Re: NFL
Amen brother! The NFL is simply a medium for transmitting commercials directly to your domepiece.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Haywood, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:37am

Does that apply to drug bust footage
Or accident scene footage? Seems like the players here are on the news more for being busted for drugs or killing people with their cars than for playing football.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jared, 6 Sep 2007 @ 6:46am

Re: my view on this.
Fair use. What a quaint idea. The NFL and MLB don't believe in fair use. I think MLB is the worse offender but they're both appallingly bad at their draconian control obsession over any and all information related to the sports. I wonder if there would be any way to get together a class action lawsuit against either or both leagues. It would be interesting to find out. Somebody needs to smack them down.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Sep 2007 @ 7:36am

A similar case from poynter
Only these news organization are actually protesting coverage of a sport.
But here it's print media against a sports organization. I don't see the video news organizations doing this with the Super Bowl(tm).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
dataGuy (profile), 6 Sep 2007 @ 8:04am

Boycott
I'm a little bummed out about it but I'm boycotting the NFL until they stop attacking Fair Use. The real drag for me is that I finally got my wife educated enough on the game that she could enjoy watching them with me. :-(
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rick, 6 Sep 2007 @ 8:48am

Did you know they no longer allow local stations to use TV Cameras in the stadiums? I was outraged at this since here in Denver we payed for the stadium. The NFL should have no say in this what so ever.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Name, 6 Sep 2007 @ 9:03am

Re: Re: NFL
The NFL is the ultimate advertisement/commercials vehicle. I swear they modify the rules every year so more commercials can be fit into a game.

i.e. Why do we need a 5 minute commercial break after each score? Most players only play offense or defense so I don't see why that long of a break is needed.

team A scores -> 5 minute break -> team B returns kick off for touchdown -> 5 minute break.

Come on thats 10 minutes of commercials and about 20 seconds of actual gameplay.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Buzz, 6 Sep 2007 @ 9:51am

joy
I've said it before, and I'll say it again. It's only a matter of time before someone copyrights his or her own face and sues those who look at it. The outside viewers are retaining the visual of that person's face IN MEMORY and are therefore illegally taking intellectual property.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 6 Sep 2007 @ 9:53am

Buzz, some of those copyrights would be worth more than others. In fact, some copyright holders actually may end up owing the viewer money.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Sanguine Dream, 6 Sep 2007 @ 9:58am

And this is why I TiVo...

team A scores -> 5 minute break -> team B returns kick off for touchdown -> 5 minute break

I don't watch too many NFL games but the few that I do watch I TiVo so I skip the ads.

and it's more like...

team A scores -> 5 minute break -> team B returns kick off for touchdown -> 5 minute break -> team A returns kick off to 50yr line -> 5 minute break -> A gets a First Down -> 5 minute break -> A is 3rd and 4 -> 5 minute break...

A football game is suppposed be four 15min. quarters. That's one hour. Even if you count timeouts, the time between scoring and kickoff, and injuries we'd have maybe 1 1/2 hr. But when is the last time an NFL game has taken less then three hours? And mind you your guide may say that the game is going to be from 4pm to 7pm but it almost always goes to 7:15 or later WITHOUT overtime.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Steve Jones, 6 Sep 2007 @ 10:01am

To bad Americans are so stupid they want to watch
Why do people in this day and age still want to worship thugs and reprobates, seems to have not worked out when societies in the past regressed to this level.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
RandomThoughts, 6 Sep 2007 @ 10:59am

Steve, in this day and age? Like this is anything new? It isn't limited to sports either, look at Hollywood. Hell, look at Congress.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Jezsik, 7 Sep 2007 @ 5:58am

When will we see THIS solution?
At this rate, I can see the day when the NFL will simply provide their own reporters, commentators and film crew, then sell the finished product to news organizations.

I CAN'T WAIT ... to see it fail.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Rates Advertising Agency, 18 Mar 2011 @ 8:33am

1st Amendment Anyone?
Thank you for posting this. It is clear that the NFL is just another in a long list of powerful organizations that think the 1st Amendment is simply fodder for their advertising measures.
[ link to this | view in thread ]