Judge Says Commerce Outweighs Free Speech Issues When It Comes To Reporting On High School Football
from the say-what-now? dept
Last year, we wrote about how a high school sports association in Wisconsin had sued some newspapers for their reporting on various high school football games, because that reporting included some broadcasting of video during the games. As we noted, in this day and age, when more and more smartphones are able to live broadcast anything the idea of "exclusive broadcasting rights" for any kind of event becomes increasingly ridiculous -- especially when you're talking about the freedom of the press to report on anything news worthy. The league had apparently even gone so far as to send invoices to media organizations that were live-blogging games.Unfortunately, however, it looks like the judge has ruled against the newspapers, saying that their right to free speech does not trump the league's attempt to make money:
"Ultimately, this is a case about commerce, not the right to a free press," Conley wrote. "WIAA has made a business decision that it will be more lucrative to give one company the rights to broadcast its tournament games, a decision that does not stifle speech or discriminate on the basis of viewpoint."Now, I can understand the basic thinking behind the ruling, and it is true that the high schools can make decisions on who they let in to games and who they keep out. But it goes a step further to then say that if you did get in and you did record video, that you can't post that video. There's no issue with the high schools or the sports association denying press credentials to future games, or asking the reporters filming the game to leave the premises. But I can't see how they have any right to sue or demand that existing video be taken down.
Furthermore, this is an issue that's only going to become a bigger and more important deal very, very quickly, as smartphones get better and better at broadcasting live video feeds. How long will it be until some enterprising folks send a team of smartphone-equipped "cameramen" to various live sporting events, and do live broadcasts from the stands? I can't wait for the legal fight over that one...
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: free speech, live broadcasting, reporting, sports
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
i have to say mike that you are the master of sour grapes when one of your pet concepts gets shot down in flames.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
That means you don't like free speech, sorry. Unsurprising that you lie about that when you also constantly lie about your identity, of course.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
For more reference see: http://www.techdirt.com/article.php?sid=20100608/0840209733#c214
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
Not only are you mixing metaphors (the quote is "your right to swings your fists ends at my nose"), but that makes no sense in the context of the ruling. In other words, your rights are sacred, right up until the point where you start causing me harm.
The judge has basically said that right to free speech is overruled by someone else's desire to make a profit. You can't "record it for yourself, you could take it home and enjoy it" if you're not at the game - that's where *reporting* comes in. What good is freedom of speech if nobody is allowed to hear what you're saying?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
No, you do NOT have the right be be heard. Talk all you want, but no one has to listen to you.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
How about a large company grants itself exclusive rights to broadcast video of it's campus. Does that mean it is now actionable if someone video tapes the beating of a man on that campus and broadcasts it? We recently had a power station explode in Connecticut - what if the power company had granted exclusive rights to broadcast images of the power station? Does the news coverage violate their IP rights?
What if a satellite snapped an image while the event was running? Is it now a violation for that image to be used? Is there some proximity clause? If you are filming from outside the stadium, do you still have a problem? Can I fly over and take pictures?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
commerce has been stretched a million ways
that law is so out of place that it's all the judges have.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: commerce has been stretched a million ways
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
That is not free speech
And, really, if the press had to spend less time covering pointless sports events, and a little more informing people of things that affect them, we would all be better off.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: That is not free speech
It can't? Why not? It seems very clear to me that if you allow free speech to be stifled for commercial reasons that doesn't happen to relate to silencing a critic, the next logical step would be to do so when silencing a critic. In your scenario, a company could invoke this precent to remove copyrighted material that happens to critisize the company. Heck, why say "could"? TechDirt is full of stories where companies are doing this already. We've already fallen to the bottom of the slippery slope.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I believe it is the act that is in question, not the quality of the broadcast; and i somehow dont think "but i stream it off my phone in full 1080p" is going to make a judge rethink the legality of the issue?
I am not sure how this will somehow trump the dollar bills that are broadcast rights.....because of the portability and prevalence of the video recording devices?
Shortly before that ruling you will get to start signing an NDA on your way into the stadium, if I was running it.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
while this is about a high school, the crap that NFL, MLB, etc pull is even more so. and it will stay that way until people just stop going to games. if they can't get anyone in the stadiums because of their screwed up rules, well maybe, just maybe, they will value us (the customer, the fan) over business partners.
and maybe a unicorn will stop by my desk with two tickets to paradise.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
I believe it is the act that is in question, not the quality of the broadcast; and i somehow dont think "but i stream it off my phone in full 1080p" is going to make a judge rethink the legality of the issue?
That wasn't the point - the point was that the tech makes this kind of thing more practical and more useful - and therefore the issue will arise more - and if the law is interpreted as this judge did ( which incidentally I believe to be simply wrong - copyright belongs to the photographer - end of story) then it will turn into another pointless game of whack the mole.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Funny thing...
I wonder how much money the judge got for that ruling, after all, commerce is greater than justice.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This is great for cash-strapped school districts who will now explore having to make the choice of buying books or having an on-staff attorney. Also, expect this case to be cited in much bigger cases.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
This will get overturned
They'll get it overturned.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Recording live events
I have no problem with schools, public or private, making the same claims whether with sports or that drama class porduction of "Rent".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording live events
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Recording live events
1.) WIAA shouldn't be receiving tax dollars. They should be self sufficient.
2.) The schools should consider charging a field usage fee that covers upkeep and storage of equipment over the full year. I imagine school fields/tennis courts/tracks/basketball courts were originally built to play "football" and "tennis" and "track" and "Basketball". Events that occur at these venues are often paid for with tax dollars.
If inter-school competitions are now "commercial" in nature, then the School and School District should be able to recover costs from hosting entities such as WIAA to cover upkeep of these facilities.
3.) Admission to these events should be taxed at local sales tax rates. Failure would indicate that the organization is in contempt of paying taxes.
4.) WIAA is indicating they are a For-Profit Corporation. I expect all normal accounting practices and annual reports to be available through the SoS.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Recording live events
Sport is completely dissimilar. Plays, films etc have copyright protection because they have been "fixed in a tangible form". The implication of a sports authority claiming copyright is that their events are rigged!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Need more details
If this is the case, then one can see why/how a league like the NFL can control the broadcast.
However - in the case of a public high school, this becomes more problematic. Sure the stadium may "belong" to the school, but if it's a public school then is it not public property? And if it's public property (bought with tax payer money) then the "press" can not be excluded from entry - nor can their recording devices, and certainly they would have the right to rebroadcast - regardless of "exclusivity" rights that the school may assign in a contract (indeed this questions whether the school even has the right to assign such broadcasting "rights").
Of course the school stadium may very well have been paid for without tax-payer money - these details are not known (by me).
These are really questions framed as statements. I would enjoy hearing the discussion around them.
-CF
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Need more details
If this is the case, then one can see why/how a league like the NFL can control the broadcast."
While some NFL stadiums are indeed privatly owned, many are built with a significant amount of public funds (Cowboys Stadium total cost $1.3B, public funds used: $325M). So why should the NFL get to put restrictions on what can be reported or recorded when the games are in stadiums funded by the tax payers?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: Need more details
Probably business development - but if the state maintains a stake in the stadium then that would be much more interesting.
In the school case - if it is a public school - we are probably looking at school property that is really owned (and maintained) by the city/county/state - i.e. "public".
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wild Speculation
I can see this whole Wisconsin case being a pawn for the NFL. Its not like the NFL has an old, historic franchise there. One with long, strong ties to its community. I can imagine a person with the NFL's interest in mind going to some high school awards banquets in the state. They might introduce a high school league to this guy who thinks it would be a good idea to buy the exclusive rights to broadcast their games. He also knows a great lawyer who can help us out.
Again, wild speculation, but the NFL does want to sell and control everything about the NFL. Its possible ...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
What if a satellite snapped an image while the event was running? Is it now a violation for that image to be used?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
STUPID!!!
We are trumping our Amendment rights for commerce?
I sincerely hope the judge takes a look at what was supposed to be upheld in the Constitution at least once a year...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Maybe it's just lofty expectations of lawyer parents
Amerikka offers the best legal system money can buy.
This is great for cash-strapped school districts who will now explore having to make the choice of buying books or having an on-staff attorney. Also, expect this to be cited in other cases, even though I imagine no one asked the basic question-- is your kid was any good at football?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
High School game - public school?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I call BS, UTTER BS!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Public
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Simple fix - don't report crap on them anymore, refuse to publish the scores even - unless the league pays up.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
How does amateur-filming a high school football game compare to amateur-filming a screening at a movie theater or broadway show? A football game is a live performance. Shouldn't bootleg video of the performance suffer the same restrictions as bootleg video of any other entertainment venue?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
shakespeare was so so right.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wisconsin? Why would any human live there? Cheese?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]