Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

Lawsuit Over Future of Fantasy Sports


spain
 Share

Recommended Posts

Honestly, fellas, it won't make an iota of impact on fantasy football. Even on the off chance the court rules in the leagues' favor on this issue, think about the ramifications if you owned a FF website. Why not just put a random letter in front of every player's first and last name? Or purposely misspell it?

 

I could have LahDanean Tommlinsun on my team...or ZPlaxico ZBurress. :D

 

1388383[/snapback]

 

 

 

Any court would see that as intent. It would never be a valid defense.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 95
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

I'm not so sure about that. Are you?

1388696[/snapback]

Yes. While not a lawyer, the deliberate misspelling of a players name in order to circumvent the law would never be tolerated by a court.

 

Unless Yukon was doing the spelling, of course. :D

 

I do think a player number might work, though.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm not so sure about that. Are you?

1388696[/snapback]

 

I will start a league where you own such players as:

 

- The lanky guy who admits to smoking pot

- The guy who had a guest appearance in "There's Something About Mary"

- The guy with the gold teeth who has a checklist in his locker and marks off DB's

- The guy who goes to airports with a "whizzinator"

 

My new FF league would not have to use any team names or logos. And it would be fun coming up with each fun fact about them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The gay Mexican QB

 

1388726[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

 

Ron Mexico or Jeff Garthia?

 

1388779[/snapback]

 

 

 

I thought he was talking about Jose Harringtonez...

Edited by spain
Link to comment
Share on other sites

The days where only city names (with (A) or (N) for New York) and jersey numbers only, as those can't be licensed in that context? :D

 

1.1 Kansas City #27

1.2 San Diego #21

1.3 Seattle #37

 

for example.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

if they decide to make it more difficult for people to part-take in fantasy...then they lose potential viewers that "need" to see the game...

 

plus other things, it has a trickle effect..

 

1387166[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I am sure this was mentioned several times, but they will lose a TON of NFL Ticket subscribers.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The "Pro Leagues" should understand that that just because they think they can does not mean they should. They need to understand that sqeezing every dime out of fanstasy sports will have nothing but a bad affect on their sport. Who would really care about a MLB game with the D-Rays and Tigers if their were no fantasy value in it? No one would watch that type of pitifull game unless their were some other interest by the fans other than the outcome (and I am a Tigers fan).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This is the key paragraph.

 

1387105[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Bingo.

 

The MLB case is a definite big thing because it will set the one thing that has never really existed - "a precendent". So both sides have pretty much everything to win or lose depending on the decision. The Fantasy Sports Trade Association is also getting into the act a bit as the industry trade organization and Whitney just became a member of their board this month so the interests of the fantasy community will definitely be looked out for.

 

It will be fascinating on many levels and this has been the main topic of discussion at trade meetings for years. As far as The Huddle is concerned, the findings of the case will not likely have a big impact on us anyway since we are mainly a news and opinion site. But all league sites and contests are definitely at risk because that is where the money - and the lawsuit - truly lies.  In the MLB, they wanted to only allow (license) about 4 or 5 companies for millions (like ESPN, FOX, SPortsline and Yahooo) and shut everything else down.

 

We'll be following it very closely indeed.

 

1387174[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

I would argue there was one other precedent, the MLB win in California mentioned in the article where they had stats declared public domain or historical information.

 

This won't go very far, I don't think. The teams can limit the use of the logos because they are trademarks. The players and players' associations can limit uses of their names and likenesses for commercial exploitation but not for mere reporting of information, in my opinion. But statistics are mere information, there is no original authorship in them sufficient to make them protectible by copyright, for example.

 

There is a famous US Supreme Court case called Feist in which two private phone book companies were fighting it out over whether one illegally copied the other. The Court wisely said, putting public information like people's names and addresses in alphabetical order is not something you can own or stop others from doing.

 

A reporter or paper going to the game and doing a column, or a stat box, can use the player names and statistics and noone can stop them. And reorganizing those stats in a specific manner--say for a Strength of Schedule article and chart--is still just using those same public historical stats. I would actually argue that DMD and The Huddle and the various authors who prepare materials here have a protectible right to their reconfigurations of statistics for a particular purpose.

 

I think MLB is definitely going to lose this one in the court of public opinion and in the actual court.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My buddy brought up a good point. If I am a season ticket holder and I actually go to every home game and I keep score on my own score card, will they then confiscate it when I leave? After all it would have stats and names on it. :D

Link to comment
Share on other sites

My buddy brought up a good point.  If I am a season ticket holder and I actually go to every home game and I keep score on my own score card, will they then confiscate it when I leave?  After all it would have stats and names on it. :D

 

1389477[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Their contention is that you are not doing that commercially.

 

The basis of their argument is not copyright issues but the right of publicity. They contend they own the right to player likenesses, stats and biographical information for promotion purposes and they others cannot use such for their own financial gain as it supposedly injures the players rights to benefit commercially from it.

 

There is another case where Tiger Woods sued someone for taking his picture playing golf and selling it. Not sure what happened on that one.

 

Their contention, right or wrong, is that allowing fantasy leagues and contests to use their names and stats (no one argues photos) diminishes their ability to profit from their own "proprietary" information and that injures them so they want relief in shutting down non-licensed sources (read non-paying).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

maybe they should realize the money that is generated in the sales of NFL merchandise due to the interest and popularity in FF and then they should look at how those numbers will suffer if and when they decide to piss us all off

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Their contention is that you are not doing that commercially.

 

The basis of their argument is not copyright issues but the right of publicity. They contend they own the right to player likenesses, stats and biographical information for promotion purposes and they others cannot use such for their own financial gain as it supposedly injures the players rights to benefit commercially from it.

 

There is another case where Tiger Woods sued someone for taking his picture playing golf and selling it. Not sure what happened on that one.

 

Their contention, right or wrong, is that allowing fantasy leagues and contests to use their names and stats (no one argues photos) diminishes their ability to profit from their own "proprietary" information and that injures them so they want relief in shutting down non-licensed sources (read non-paying).

 

1389514[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

Someone tell me how open speculation about football stats does not fall under the auspices of free speech? If being able to openly discuss football, including stats is protected under free speech, then why not simply charge the fee for something like "Message board access" and continue giving opinions?

 

And also I would expect we would see a TON of FF league providers move offshore to host gaming applications, circumventing the new laws.

 

I really don't see how they can stop someone like DMD who can argue they are offering opinions "for entertainment only". Just like political pundits. opinions.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They are not really out to get sites/sources that offer news and opinion, afterall even they can figure out that it is pure positives to them by having all us media in essence promote their game for them. But they see money in FF leagues and contests and whenever people see a pot of gold, they tend to want to take as much of it as possible. Odd that they were not interested in fantasy football until suddenly a couple of years ago when they saw some real cash being spent.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

From John Clayton

 

NFL reining in images: The NFL is clamping down on digital video pictures taken during games. That should end up being bad news for local television stations along the sidelines. The league showed owners examples of how video shot along the sidelines ended up on websites. The NFL is trying to control its intellectual content. The wording of the resolution wasn't available Tuesday evening.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Someone tell me how open speculation about football stats does not fall under the auspices of free speech? If being able to openly discuss football, including stats is protected under free speech, then why not simply charge the fee for something like "Message board access" and continue giving opinions?

 

1389533[/snapback]

 

 

 

 

The First Amendment only applies (for the most part) to restrict actions taken by the state (government).

 

As there is no state actor in this particular case, the First Amendment is not an issue.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Why would one work and not the other? Please explain.

 

1389245[/snapback]

 

 

 

Because a number, like 3 or 88 or whatever is a much more difficult sell as a copyright violation than Tomlynson, Mannning or Alixander. Players or clubs might win the rights to their names, logos, etc, but as long as the stats remain in the public domain, attaching a number to them doesn't violate the name copyright.

 

A court might disagree, but Fox were unpleasantly surprised to find that Fair And Balanced was not protectable - I don't see the Seahawks or SA sensibly arguing that they have exclusive rights to 37. After all, math classes need it to bridge the gap between 36 and 38.

 

Our problem would be differentiating between the different RB 37s.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 1 month later...

Just an update on this whole issue, I think this might be the first major media outlet taking a stand one way or the other:

 

NEW YORK TIMES TAKES STRONG POSITION ON LAWSUIT

In the last two weeks, the New York Times has devoted more coverage on the growing fantasy sports industry than it had in the last two decades. First it published a piece on the CBC vs. MLBAM lawsuit and on Saturday, May 20 it published an editorial on that lawsuit. Below is the editorial that was published in the New York Times, headlined Royalties on R.B.I.’s?:

 

“Baseball statistics are an unlikely subject for a constitutional battle. But a lawsuit between Major League Baseball and a fantasy baseball company over batting averages and on-base percentages is shaping up to be just that. The narrow question is whether Major League Baseball has a right to keep the fantasy baseball company from using statistics from its games. But the suit has much broader implications for free speech. The courts should make it clear that anyone may use baseball statistics.

 

“The company, CBC Distribution and Marketing, is a leader in fantasy baseball, a $1.5-billion-a-year industry that allows fans to become “owners” of imaginary baseball teams. Participants “draft” real-life major league players, and compete against similar teams. The teams’ performance and the winners are determined by the statistics of actual major league players. Major League Baseball insists that it owns the statistics, and that CBC should pay licensing fees. CBC is suing to establish that it does not have to pay to use the statistics.

 

“The case pits the “right of publicity” against the First Amendment. Major League Baseball claims that its right of publicity allows it to control and charge for the use of its statistics. But the right of publicity is narrowly limited to commercial exploitation. The classic case is the unauthorized use of a celebrity’s photograph in an advertisement.

 

“Major League Baseball’s attempt to stretch the right of publicity is part of a larger trend. Corporations are becoming increasingly aggressive about locking up information. It is the same instinct that led Hollywood studios to push Congress to pass the Copyright Term Extension Act of 1998, which added 20 years to every copyright.

 

“If Major League Baseball is allowed to control the use of its statistics, movie stars could demand compensation from magazines that profile them or put them on the covers. A hero who pulls a child from the path of an out-of-control car could claim that he owns the right of publicity for his act of heroism. But the First Amendment guarantees people the right to discuss public events. A movie star’s career trajectory, an act of heroism and a batting average are all facts about the world and the people in it, and belong to all of us.”

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information