If A Sporting Event Is Newsworthy, Why Can't News Organizations Broadcast It?
from the ownership-society dept
In the past, sports leagues have tried to claim that transmitting information about their events violated their copyrights, but every time they've tried to enforce that, they've lost (often badly) in court. Despite the exaggerated claims you often hear towards the ends of sporting broadcasts about how "Any use of this broadcast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the league's consent, is prohibited," just because they say it, doesn't make it so -- especially when it comes to "descriptions" of the game.Of course, this has always made me wonder about the "exclusive contracts" that various sports teams and leagues sign with certain broadcast companies for TV, radio and internet streams. Because, in this day and age, the lines between things start to get blurry really fast. If I'm at a game and using my mobile phone to tell a friend what's happening, am I broadcasting? What if I'm using three way calling so it's more than just one person listening? What if it's 10 people? Now, what if I'm filming the game with my cell phone? These days, there are tons of new services like Qik that allow you to broadcast video directly from your mobile phone. You know there's a lawsuit waiting to happen...
And while it isn't quite as extreme yet, there is a lawsuit happening now that may play into this. Romenesko points us to the news that the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association has sued newspaper giant Gannett for daring to cover its sporting events by including online video of the event. It claims that showing the event infringes "on its exclusive media ownership rights." Specifically, the group is claiming that high school sporting events are not news, and therefore it has the right to "control the transmission, Internet stream, photo, image, film, videotape, audiotape, writing, drawing or other depiction or description" of games.
Already, we know that it's simply not true that they have the right to control "description" of the game, but do they really have the right to any video tape of the event as well? It seems like quite a stretch to claim that a sporting event is not news. Now, if the event is on private property, they could simply ban the ability to film/record the event and throw violators off the property, but that's separate from the "media ownership rights."
The article above, written by the local Gannett-owned newspaper who filed the suit, is a bit misleading, in that most of the article claims it was sued simply for reporting on the game, which is absolutely ridiculous. The reporter doesn't even mention the video streaming until the 10th paragraph. Still, once you realize that a video you film yourself really is just another "depiction" of a news event... you do have to wonder if the sports organizations really can claim ownership over it. Perhaps this lawsuit will let us find out.
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: broadcast rights, copyright, media rights, news, sports
Companies: gannett
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
Gannett could cover the high school games by sending a reporter, getting credentials, and producing their own news. They likely would not get accreditation for video.
Mike, what would you think if I came to the "FREE!" seminar thing and video taped all of the seminar, and then sold those videos online? Would I need a license or permission, or are you saying that because it is digital that I should be free to distribute it?
Think hard before you answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Which I said. I made it clear that in private arenas the company has the right to control what it allows you to do... but that's a trespassing issue, not a copyright one.
Mike, what would you think if I came to the "FREE!" seminar thing and video taped all of the seminar, and then sold those videos online? Would I need a license or permission, or are you saying that because it is digital that I should be free to distribute it?
Considering that tickets are free and we're broadcasting it free online... um... if you want to help us spread it further... who's going to complain about that?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Many things fall under this category. Malls, roads built by apartment complexes, arenas, etc.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The question here is not whether the event was public or private, but whether it qualifies as news, and whether the reporting method was appropriate.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
A reporter decides to cover something, anything, is that not news? Why does something "crazy" have to occur? Is it only news if a fight breaks out during a council meeting; if all is orderly then there is no news?
The question is NOT one of whether something is news or not. That is ENTIRELY subjective.
The only question here is whether trespassing occurred or not. Since the reporter was allowed into the stadium and not asked to refrain from recording, it likely is not trespassing.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Euthanasia is the best answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
Hail Xenu!
Big Mook
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
I am your more level headed, highly educated secondary persona.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
less "news" more "performance"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: less "news" more "performance"
That's a terribly destructive mindset.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
created reality - news? not.
If an event is created, then only what is done to create it and what results are news. The event is a staged performance, controlled by those who staged it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
A sporting event is spontaneous and unscripted (well, it is supposed to be) so it is not copyrightable. A seminar can consist entirely of copyrighted speech.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Read the story: "The lawsuit was set in motion after The P-C presented a live webcast Nov. 8 on the newspaper's Web site, postcrescent.com, of a playoff football game between Appleton North and Stevens Point in Stevens Point, home of the WIAA." - They were not filing a news report, they were broadcasting the event live. That is nowhere near the same thing. If they had put together a 30 second news report highlight reel and run it after the event was over, I am sure they wouldn't be facing a lawsuit.
I know you like to get all outraged and indignant over the issues, but at least try to pick something that makes sense.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Hmmm
However, most fans of such events go for the bleachers, the cold air, the fun of cheering with friends/family, etc. There is lots of value in actually attending the event. Blocking out external broadcasts will not magically drive attendance up (if that is what the organizers are hoping for).
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
Actually, I quite clearly explained that. In fact, I explained it more clearly than the original news report.
Harold, you have a long history of getting your facts wrong. Why do you keep doing this?
They were not filing a news report, they were broadcasting the event live.
Uh, yes. Read the post. I said exactly that.
Thanks for reading.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Drop It
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
EXACTLY. These are OUR kids playing - whether you consider it aperformance or not. WE built those schools and WE pay the taxes to make those games happen.
NOBODY owns our kids or our schools. They are public schools and public games, and anyone - including any newspaper or TV network/station who also pays taxes can report on it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
In my mind, you couldn't make this more of a public event if you tried. In other words, the school disctrict can't sign away the rights of a public event to a private organization. You can't sell something you don't own.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This
What this guy said
This was a public performance on public grounds by a public school. How can someone claim ownership? Heck, it was an open field. I could've sat in the street and recored from my parked car.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public money
I mean really, since out money is paying their salaries and they are running around out on a field paid for with tax money, why isn't any tax payer free to film and use the event for any purpose they choose?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]