Can A Radio Station Give Away Tickets To A Football Game? The Eagles Say No...

from the right-of-first-sale dept

Tue, Oct 6th 2009 3:52am — Mike Masnick

We've noted the trend of trying to cut down on scalping by using e-tickets to stop the transfer of tickets, but it appears that the Philadelphia Eagles football team also is trying to stop radio stations from doing promotional giveaways. The team has sued the owner of the radio station, saying that the terms on the back of the ticket forbid the use of the tickets for commercial purposes -- such as contests -- and also that the station is violating the Eagles' trademarks in naming them around the ticket giveaway promotion. This raises a bunch of questions about the right of first sale on a ticket. While the stadium may have the right to forbid entry to anyone, it seems like that would be a dumb move on the team's part. My guess is that the team's main concern is that it only wants partner (i.e., those who paid a ton for broadcast rights) radio stations to give away tickets -- but that doesn't mean there's a legal right there. If the tickets were legitimately bought, why shouldn't the station be able to sell them or give them away? And, considering that the radio station was accurately describing the team when using the name, that shouldn't be a trademark violation.

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: first sale, football, tickets
Companies: philadelphia eagles

42 Comments

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

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread

Steve R. (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:09am

You Bought it You Own It
As Mike correctly notes, when you own something you have a "right of first sale". The sellers of merchandise to not have a right to deny you, post sale, the use of your property. When you buy something you acquire a property right to the use of that product.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
EdT, 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:13am

Eagles tickets...
yup, the question is "If the tickets were legitimately bought, why shouldn't the station be able to sell them or give them away?" underscore "if", we don't know because the author didn't investigate... the rest of the article is hyperbole...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Richard (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:33am
  
  Re: Eagles tickets...
  yup, the question is "If the tickets were legitimately bought, why shouldn't the station be able to sell them or give them away?" underscore "if", we don't know because the author didn't investigate... the rest of the article is hyperbole...
  
  Cobblers!
  
  There is no suggestion in the Eagles' complaint that the tickets were not bought legitimately.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:34am
  
  Re: Eagles tickets...
  So you automatically assume that the tickets were stolen? I think we may want proof before we start accusing people of theft.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- MBraedley (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:38am
  
  Re: Eagles tickets...
  Are you suggesting that a radio station would furnish stolen or otherwise illegally acquired merchandise for a contest? I realize it's not unheard of, but enough people can get in enough shit for it that I highly doubt it happens all that often, especially for items worth more than a couple hundred dollars, which is probably the lower limit for the cost of these tickets.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:08am
  
  Re: Eagles tickets...
  obvious troll is obvious.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:16am
  
  Re: Eagles tickets...
  "we don't know because the author didn't investigate..."
  
  Thats why he said "if" and not "because".
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:38am

Of course it's amusing that all the google ads are for Eagles tickets and gear.

Why are companies so bipolar about advertising?

"I'll give you a dollar for that candy."

"You can have it for free."

"No! You have to pay me to take it!"
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Nfnitloop (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:07am

You might have legally purchased the piece of paper
But the ticket, not unlike software, states on the back that it is a license to view the game and there are all sorts of other terms about not sharing any details of the event including taking pictures, recordings, etc.
Under all the legalese though (at least on my tickets) is usually a coupon to some fast food joint that I can use after the game. That makes up for it...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Matthew Cruse (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 9:42am
  
  Re: You might have legally purchased the piece of paper
  yes, but just because all of the legalese is in there does not mean that it is enforceable or legal.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Vincent Clement, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:07am

Ever notice that when a company or organization says someone is violating their trademark or intellectual property, that someone is usually promoting the company or organization in a positive way?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- A Dan (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:14am
  
  Re:
  I'm not sure that's accurate. The stories that Techdirt considers worth fostering conversations are the possible abuses. I don't think this site is intended to be representative of all "Intellectual Property" lawsuits.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Skippy T. Mut, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:15am

Who care...
The Eagles suck anyway!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Greg, 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:48am
  
  Re: Who care...
  Yea, who cares, it's the Eagles.. They're behaving like their fans that throw rock/battery -laden snowballs at opposing teams' players and/or fans.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - thescoopz (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 10:22am
    
    Re: Who care...
    Yes, who cares. Anyone that signs that scumbag Michael Vick on needs to have their head examined.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
JustMe, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:17am

Devil's Advocate
I think the Eagles are in the wrong, but here is an interesting theory taken from the software industry...

What if they aren't selling you a ticket? When if they are renting you a seat at a game and the ticket is proof of your completed rental agreement?

Also, don't tickets usually have a bunch of legally questionable cruft on the back of them? Why not use a pen and mark it up. If the ticket taker doesn't object then you have new terms of use.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Howard, Cowering, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:17am

Somebody, please, ask a lawyer
Is the legalese on the back of a ticket you do not receive posession of, and therefore cannot read, until after you have paid for it a valid contract?
Is this akin to the shrink-wrap "agreement" on software?
Can I attach a label to my cradit (or debit) card saying acceptance of this card as payment renders all other restrictions related to the sale and use of the item null and void, and have any hope of it being upheld in a court of law?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Overcast (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:31am

This is full of Fail.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 4:57pm
  
  Re:
  With a bag of Fail on the side.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
thomas, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:39am

One would think...
That the Eagles want people to go to their games. Apparently they don't want people interested in their team or coming to the games. I thought sports teams wanted promotion? Legal questions aside, it sounds like they simply hate fans.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Doug Vannoni (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:45am

Will It Even Get To Court?
Wow, some good legal minds here. I wonder if it'll ever get argued?

I worked at a local NYC tv station & once we made the mistake of including NY Mets tickets in a contest. the Mets, the MLB & a gang of lawyers attacked claiming all the things that Eagles have claimed.

At the end of the day, it wasn't the legal pressure that got us to fold, it was the threat of limiting our access to the team. As a news station, that would have been death for our sports dept. In most cases when media entities run afoul of major league anything, it's access that the teams use as leverage before lawsuits.

So aside from a bunch of crappy oldies & pop stations on the Jersey shore, does the NFL have any access leverage with which to pressure Equity Communications, LP. Guess we'll find out.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Sean T Henry (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 10:00am
  
  Re: Will It Even Get To Court?
  The station should have pressed on. If they become limited then never mention the Mets. "To day in sports no one cares about the NY baseball team since they place legal pressure on broad casters for promoting them. In other news the Reds won."
  
  Make it apparent why they are no longer being included tell the truth.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - minijedimaster (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:00pm
    
    Re: Re: Will It Even Get To Court?
    That's what I was thinking too. Why doesn't this "Radio Station" or in Doug's case the "TV Station" just call out the team for what it's doing. I'm sure a whole bunch of bad press will take care of the issue right quick.
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
known coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 6:47am

It is the eagles
Of course they misunderstand that ticket giveaways for eagles tickets help promote the team even if they did not get paid for allowing someone to promote them.

Ticket giveaway's to eagles game should be banned. Actually the eagles should be banned but that is not the topic of this thread.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
JB, 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:21am

Commercial Purposes
The issue is not the giving away of the tickets. The issue is that the radio station is using the name of the Philaelphia Eagles to make money for the radio station.

The back of the ticket says that it "may not be used for advertising, promotion, or other commercial purposes (including contests, sweepstakes, and giveaways)" without express written consent.

You can do whatever you want with the ticket, including give it away, as long as you do not use it to promote or make money for your business.

By the way, as far as the "own vs. license" argument, the back of the ticket claims that "This ticket is a revocable license and may be revoked at the sole discretion of the [team] by refunding the price of the ticket."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Luci, 6 Oct 2009 @ 11:42am
  
  Re: Commercial Purposes
  Just because the /ticket/ says it does not make it legally binding. We'll have to wait to see what a court says, but in the meantime the issue that the Eagles are being idiots still stands.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
shanese, 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:24am

i think the whole thing is a big waste of time because the team she be glad that the radio station is trying to prompte them they must be sorry if they have to have a radio station force the tickets on people
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
AC, 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:25am

first sale doctrine
If the ticket in question were a season ticket, that "renting a seat" idea might apply, but if it's a box office ticket, the "license" *should* transfer with the ticket.

I'm hoping the decisions in Vernor vs. Autodesk that address first sale will be applied to more than just software. It seems like the kind of crap that the Eagles are trying to pull here would fit in that category.

It's just my opinion, but calling a "sale" a "license" doesn't change the nature of the transaction.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Promotional Advisor, 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:47am

The Eagles Have It...
Well if that is the case, they should not be able to sell the tickets, due to promotion of their games. The radio station does not make money on giveaways, they make people happy to be part of the community.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Shawn (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 7:57am

I do not know if this is the case here but ... If Radio Station A has ponied up 3/4 of a gazillion dollars to be ' The Official Radio Station' of the Iggles and part of that agreement between Radio station A and the Iggles is the exclusive right to use ticket giveaways as a promotion I could see Station A getting very grumpy and asking the Iggles to stomp on Station B when they are using Iggles tickets as a promotion.
Which would probably end up in Station B trying to get around it by giving away tickets to 'the big game sunday' and not mentioning the Iggles at all.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:06pm
  
  Re:
  Just because Station A and the Loogies have an agreement does not mean they [Loogies] have a legal right to stop other stations from doing giveaways.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Richard (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 8:09am

Rights that don't really exist
Once again we see an attempt to conjure into existence a "right" that doesn't really exist in law.

Would they complain if someone donated a couple of tickets as a prize in a local charity raffle?

Would it depend if they "approved" of the charity?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- Almost Anonymous (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 8:48am
  
  Re: Rights that don't really exist
  """
  Once again we see an attempt to conjure into existence a "right" that doesn't really exist in law.
  """
  
  I'm not sure that I agree in this case. It sounds as if, according to other comments, the ticket denotes several stipulations that the buyer must agree to in order to purchase the ticket, thus a contract is created. If promotion is disallowed under the terms of the contract, then it's disallowed. It's a pretty stupid move IMHO, but I don't see anything technically wrong with the Iggle's position.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
  - Chronno S. Trigger (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 9:30am
    
    Re: Re: Rights that don't really exist
    1) Any contract that cannot be seen until the agreement is made is not a valid contract.
    
    2) No contract can go against the law, so a company cannot revoke the right of first sale.
    
    3) There has to be something else going on here or most (ok, I don't know if it's most) of season tickets sales are illegal. If a company purchases season tickets it's for the express intent of giving them to potential clients or to employees, ether way it's to increase profits for that company.
    
    4) The ticket was payed for, why douse it matter who payed for it? At least this way one more fan goes to the game instead of someone going because they didn't want to waste the ticket (if they don't just waste it)
    [ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 8:13am

Wasn't it the NFL who tried to trademark "The Big Game" ?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 8:21am

It's the frakin' Eagles!
Everyone knows you can't give Eagles ticket away...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Martin, 6 Oct 2009 @ 8:35am

"EAGLES" = "GREED"
Greed driven franchises will drive their fans and supporters away as a result.

Any of the reasons mentioned here or by Eagles are not a reason for this hostile behavior. If I shloud watch for a lawyer on the bench behind me making notes, I would prefer to find some other amusement than a stadium visit.
Radio station mentioned here is in abusive relationship with the Eagles.

You folks dont realise it, but me coming to U.S. from communist CS, I see lots of behavior amongs the big media and/or sport franchises like the communist exhibited. Mostly speaking the abuse/misuse of power and law against anyone they didn't like (or felt artificially threatnen by) and being above the law everytime they did someone wrong..
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
James Miller, 6 Oct 2009 @ 9:09am

Give away!
I would find it hard to believe that the radio station could not give these tickets away anyway they liked? I would believe that you could not implicate in anyway that the Eagles are in anyway connected to the give away.
I can't believe the Eagles would make such a frigging big deal out of it!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Will (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 10:06am

10th caller gets license to view Eagles game
I can see it now. Radio DJs gone bad. (in best morning show DJ voice) "Jack FM has YOUR seats for the Iggles versus the Redskins, all you have to do is be the 10th caller and you and another person will win the rights to a license with which you can view the upcoming Iggles game in person on Sunday afternoon. Understand that we will transfer all rights reserved by the Philadelphia Eagles, the NFL, and other interested parties (heretofore referred to as "the Iggles") Please note these rights are limited to the right to view aforementioned athletic contest. Reproduction via video or photographic paraphenalia is expressly forbidden, as is throwing anything other than "C" or "D" size batteries at Jim Zorn, Albert Haynesworth, Clinton Portis, and additional Redskins employees as specified by public notice on the Jumbotron." Oh well, I had fun writing this. You get my point.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Anonymous Coward, 6 Oct 2009 @ 10:54am

As JB said, this isn't just about giving the tickets away... The station was violating the Eagles trademarks by putting their logo's, helmets, pictures of players etc on a bunch of promotional items for the radio station. Like it or not, most if not all pro sports teams consider this a no-no.

@Greg: Yeah, and you also forget that we cheered when that douche Michael Irvin nearly broke his neck at Vet stadium.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
- ChurchHatesTucker (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 4:39pm
  
  Re:
  "As JB said, this isn't just about giving the tickets away... The station was violating the Eagles trademarks by putting their logo's, helmets, pictures of players etc on a bunch of promotional items for the radio station. Like it or not, most if not all pro sports teams consider this a no-no."
  
  Most if not all radio stations charge for that shit. Morons.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]
- minijedimaster (profile), 6 Oct 2009 @ 5:16pm
  
  Re:
  
  The station was violating the Eagles trademarks by putting their logo's, helmets, pictures of players etc on a bunch of promotional items for the radio station.
  If by "promotional items" you mean tickets then yea. Otherwise what the hell are you talking about. I read the first several pages of the complaint via link provided and the only thing they mention is using the tickets to the game for promotional use.
  [ link to this | view in chronology ]