Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats

from the this-again? dept

Thu, Jun 4th 2009 6:06pm — Mike Masnick

Recent court rulings have made it clear that sports leagues have overreached (by a long shot) in trying to force online fantasy sports sites to license player info. The courts have pointed out that player names and stats are factual information, not subject to copyright. Now, this has resulted in many fantasy sports sites to skip renewing any licensing deals. The NFL Players Assocation, despite already having lost such a case, still went to Yahoo and threatened it with a lawsuit over this issue. It appears Yahoo decided to be proactive and sued for a declaratory judgment that its uses of player info was not in violation. It's an aggressive move by Yahoo -- but it also shows (reasonably) that the company believes that it's likely to win (and, perhaps, that it was worried about whatever district the NFL PA would have filed its own lawsuit in). Either way, it's yet another chance to remind sports leagues that they don't get to copyright factual information.

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: copyright, fantasy sports, football, players, stats
Companies: nfl, nfl players association, yahoo

21 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:23pm

You have to wonder, only because the intent of a "fantasy sports" leagues isn't just to present data (that would be news oriented) but rather to create a profitable game off of it.

It is certainly a questionable area.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:28pm

So what?
"You have to wonder, only because the intent of a "fantasy sports" leagues isn't just to present data (that would be news oriented) but rather to create a profitable game off of it."

Yeah, and Avalon Hill had a long run of making games based on factual data. Do the estates of Hitler, Napoleon, and Lee deserve a cut?

There's some kind of nictating membrane that covers people's (or at least, AC's) brains when the concept of someone making money enters the picture.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GregSJ (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:37pm

Precedent
Take 2 (for some reason all of my comments keep getting held for moderation.)
Yahoo did indeed file the suit to get jurisdiction of their choice. The MN court has already heard this issue and held against the NFL (CBS Interactive, Inc. v. Nat. Football League Players Inc., 70:08-cv-0597-ADM-SRN (D. Minn.))
Whereas the NFL won a similar lawsuit in Florida (Gridiron.com, Inc. v. Nat'l Football League, Player's Ass'n, Inc., 106 F. Supp. 2d 1309, 1315 (S.D. Fla. 2000))
Thus given the NFL's threat in seems clear that Yahoo wanted to file first to get a jurisdiction with better precedent.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Randal Burgess, 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:44pm

Players Associations, Not Leagues
It's not the sports leagues that are involved, it's the player associations. Both MLB Media (on behalf of their contract with the MLBPA) and the NFLPA are the ones who claim that their info is copyrightable. To my knowledge, neither MLB or the NFL are getting involved directly with these arguments.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
GregSJ (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 6:57pm

Re: Players Associations, Not Leagues
Very true. That is what I deserve for being lazy. (I had hoped the case citations were evidence enough.)
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:01pm

The headline:

Yahoo Gets Aggressive: Wants Court To Make It Clear That It Doesn't Need To Pay To Use Player Names/Stats

Your lead in the article:

Recent court rulings have made it clear that sports leagues have overreached (by a long shot) in trying to force online fantasy sports sites to license player info.

So whats the case about?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:11pm

Re: So what?
Public battles are not the same as private sporting events.

Nice try, but pretty much an epic fail (Lee would be proud).
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Josh O. (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 7:24pm

Re: Re: So what?
How is it a private sporting event if it is broadcast on television, often nationally.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Esahc (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:16pm

Re:
Will you please explain to me how this is a questionable area and why it even matters that they want to make a profit?
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Esahc (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:29pm

Re:
"It appears Yahoo decided to be proactive and sued for a declaratory judgment that its uses of player info was not in violation."

I like reading.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:35pm

Re: Re: So what?
Public battles are not the same as private sporting events.

1) He didn't say they were the same. He made a legitimate comparison between two similar concepts. Do you really not understand the difference between "similar" and "same"?

2) Whether or not the event which generated the factual information is public or private or whether it was protected by copyright is completely irrelevent to the situation. What's important is that the Yahoo is using factual information which, as the TD post clearly pointed out, is not protected by copyright. How the factual information came to be or if it's used in a subsequent commercial venture doesn't matter according to the law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 8:44pm

Either way, it's yet another chance to remind sports leagues that they don't get to copyright factual information.

Importantly, the action filed by Yahoo does not involve copyright law except to the very limited extent it argues that federal copyright law preempts state law regarding the "right of publicity".

See: http://www.bannerwitcoff.com/_docs/C-Y09-1272N.pdf
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 9:03pm

Re: Re: Re: So what?
1) They aren't any more similar than plain white toast and a glass of champagne.

2) Using only the data wouldn't be an issue, but there is the issue of player names, league name (which is copyright and marketing partners pay big to be part of), etc. Creating an NFL Fantasy League suggests at least a little bit that the NFL may be involved, which they are not. Using the NFL name and the player data isn't a clear "free" use.

As there are conflicting judgements in different districts, it is clear that this issue is far from as cut and dry as you suggest it is.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 9:29pm

Re: Re: Re: Re: So what?
NFL troll. Copyright and TM are different.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
iyogi (profile), 4 Jun 2009 @ 10:08pm

RE:
it's yet another chance to remind sports leagues that they don't get to copyright factual information.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 4 Jun 2009 @ 11:54pm

I'm going to copyright the fact that 2 + 2 = 4. If anyone else uses that fact or even states it (even in a classroom) they're violating copyright.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous, 5 Jun 2009 @ 5:38am

Re:
You cannot copyright a fact. That's the point, and you missed it by a mile. The intent behind the use of a fact is irrelevant. You can use any fact you want without fear of legal action, because facts are not the sort of thing you can put under a legal monopoly like copyright. You cannot be sued for libel because of a fact, because it is true. Think of it this way: a person's batting average is NOT a creative endeavor and cannot be copyrighted.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 5 Jun 2009 @ 6:48am

Re: Re: Re: Re: So what?
1) They aren't any more similar than plain white toast and a glass of champagne.

Historic battles and sporting events are similar in that they generate factual information which can't be copyrighted. You're statement that these two types of events are not the same is irrelevent because the original point was not that they were themselves the same, but that they generates the same type of information. If you want to provide lists of other food or beverage items that are not the same, fine. But it's ignoring the point.

2) Using only the data wouldn't be an issue, but there is the issue of player names, league name (which is copyright and marketing partners pay big to be part of), etc.
How much "marketing partners" pay the NFL is irrelevent to the legality and morality of whether the NFL has the right to charge for these services. The whole point of the lawsuit is to question the legality of those requirements that NFL give permission to use factual information.

Creating an NFL Fantasy League suggests at least a little bit that the NFL may be involved, which they are not.

I think it would suggest an affiliation only to the proverbial moron in a hurry.

Using the NFL name and the player data isn't a clear "free" use.

In my opinion it is and, more importantly, it should be. Do you disagree that it should be?

As there are conflicting judgements in different districts, it is clear that this issue is far from as cut and dry as you suggest it is.

True enough. However, I believe that the "ownership" of factual information was never the intent of copyright and that the NFL's and MLB's use of copyright to attempt to control all aspects of the games, including claiming copyright on player stats, is a corruption of the law that should be corrected.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 5 Jun 2009 @ 10:12am

So many of the above comments seem premisted on the mistaken notion that this case is about copyright.

Let me say it one last time and with emphasis'

This case, at least at this point in time, has absolutely nothing to do with copyright law. This case is predicated solely under state law pertaining to the "right of publicity", a legal doctrine separate and distinct from copyright law.

All the harping in the world about copyright law is irrelevant in relation to this case. There is a link provided above for the complaint filed by Yahoo. It is useful to read it before launching off with invective directed at copyright law.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Hulser (profile), 5 Jun 2009 @ 12:02pm

Re:
Copyright is relevent to this discussion because it is one of the tools that the NFL uses to overreach its control over information. People aren't upset about which legal method the NFL, MLB, and other similar organizations attempt to extort other companies into paying them money for using information that should be free. They're upset about the extortion itself.
[ link to this | view in thread ]
Anonymous Coward, 7 Jun 2009 @ 3:49pm

Re: Re:
Copyright may be relevant to a discussion of this article if the lawsuit that is noted involved the assertion of copyright against one party by the other. However, such is not the case in this lawsuit. Hence, trying to turn this matter into a copyright law thread if off the mark.
[ link to this | view in thread ]