Damn you DE and all the corps that are incorp'd under your laws!
Damn you DE and all the corps that are incorp'd under your laws!
is 3 days, 18 hours total and all essay (except for the multistate bar portion). Pass rate is around 52%.
It seems like a no brainer that each of these factors go in your favor.
Factor 3 seems a little gray, especially because every snap on offense and defense is being shown.
There are like 120 snaps in a game. the UFRs are like 30 of those.
OK i must be thinking of the every offensive snap videos. My bad.
Wich, if I'm not mistaken, is not posted by Brain but by someone independent of the blog. Feel free to correct me when/if I'm wrong (neg bang no necessario - I've just recently reached the "golden" 100-point thresshold).
Sadly neg bangs don't actually work anymore. I've been very sad since that day so long ago. Stupid virus.
I've known that, for a while been visiting this site long before I joined. But I'm sad you were going to neg bang me (not that it matters, it's just the internet - as invented by Al Gore).
He wasn't going to neg you... you used to be allowed to neg at 100 points
Additionally, a television broadcast is typically 3-4 hours long. UFRs use approximately 30 clips lasting on average, 25 seconds. Thats 750 seconds or 12.5 min. So in total. UFR's show between 5-7% of the copyrighted television broadcast.
You can't copyright a football game. It isn't a creative work that needs to be protected. The only thing they are copyrighting is their broadcast of the game. Brian's work has zero interest in the broadcast and is merely concerned with what happened in the game itself. If he videotaped the game himself or got access to the coach's tape he could totally do this without any interference.
Them whining about it when it clearly has zero impact on the commercial viability of their "work of art" (if anything Brian's blog encourages people to watch Michigan football games) is just a stupid waste of time and resources for everyone.
But it is "their" broadcast, and not another video he's using.
It is still a douchey move on their part when they suffer zero damage and the only reason Brian (or anyone else) uses "their broadcast" is because it makes zero sense to have thousands of different people set up tripods inside the stadium on gameday if they want to see how the safeties are reacting when we play cover-two some time in the middle of the next week.
I agree, he's not taking anything away from their broadcast. It's probably just a "slippery-slope" issue they don't want to venture down with letting people use parts of their broadcast without permission.
It is the same reason little league baseball teams and junior football teams get cease and desist letters for using MLB and NFL logos.
If you don't actively protect your copyright/trademark you are in danger of losing it.
Speaking of this, it would be pretty sweet to get a bunch of people to record the game from different angles and have each person focus on one position so that we had a full breakdown of the game afterward. That will never happen, but it would be completely awesome.
I think you would have the argument that the direction, different camera angles, shots, replays, etc would be considered making the broadcast an art.
With that being said, I think if you add your own commentary and mute the audio you win the argument.
They're some of the best lawyers around. Although Mike Ross technically isn't a lawyer. He pretended to go to Harvard Law, if that counts. Plus, I've heard their suits are some of the best.
But seriously, best of luck. If I end up going to law school, I'd be happy to help out with things like this in the future.
Sounds like a job for Dexter Morgan.
Not yet. But if they take the play videos out of my UFRs, it will be.
Brian, on the flip side, did you doing anything about that dude from 310Sports poaching your stuff.
Don't people flip the images of video clips to get around copyright? So clips from TV shows and movies have been "altered" but really are just the mirror image. I know I've seen this a lot, but I'm not sure if it's just a myth or fact. Worth considering though, no?
Someone can correct me, but I believe they do that so that the programs that scan youtube for copyrighted material don't catch them. If the picture in their video doesn't match the screen caps they're scanning for, they are less likely to get caught because no human is going to do that work.
Its not saving the environment, but saving the UFR logically has to be the next best thing.
I hear Attorney Hiram Katz may be of use to you.
20+ years in the practice of law have taught me one certainty: Big business wins before the robed gods.
was this issued to you via (physical) mail or did YouTube delete all your videos and warn you?
Would it be permissable for you (Brian) to post the entirety of what was sent?
I think fair use argument aside, you should get some advice from someone who does precisely this kind of work, because they will know the reprecussions of striking back and whether it's worth it. For example, I do professional liability defense (legal, accounting malpractice) and a good chunk of those suits occur only after the professional has sued the client for fees. Lesson being, often it is wiser not to wade into legal action altogether.
I will contact my IP sources at my firm and elsewhere and see what they think. If you're interested just message me, I'd prefer it to be more confidential. Either way, good luck.
One fundamental thing you need to know about copyright litigation: The loser in a copyright case pays the winner's attorneys' fees as a matter of law.
This is an exception to the general rule in the US that each party pays his own fees, win or lose.
These fees are commonly in excess of six figures.
Do not be so eager for a fight.
Fair Use is a concept that is not as clearly understood by the courts as one might surmise.
I speak as someone with years of copyright litigation experience. (Gee, I almost forgot my disclaimer: This is not legal advice. You are not my client. I'm not giving you legal advice. Ask your own lawyer. If you don't have one, find one. I'm not interested in your case. I wouldn't take your case in any event because I'm not accepting cases from anyone, for any reason, any more.).
Thanks for the legal advice.
What's the harm in filing a counter-notice? My understanding is that if you file the counter-notice saying that you believe in good faith that the material is not infringing, it will be restored.
At that point, the copyright holder may or may not decide to take legal action. If they do, it seems to me you can either just take the material down again or fight them in court -- or negotiate with them what kind of content woud be acceptable, e.g. what percentage of game with commentary would constitute fair use. (I'm not a lawyer, obviously).
So is there any real cost in calling their bluff? My impression is that these takedown notices are sent in excess because they are no-cost, and that the number of cases that copyright holders are actually willing to sue over is a small portion of those.
Being sued is not a cost if the goal of the suit is to remove the content and you comply. The only cost is in defending yourself if you decide to -- or if they go for monetary damages. Is the latter even possible? That's my question.
I think takedown notice is not their way of doing this "nicely", its the easy way the law affords them to get rid of content without having to make any kind of a case that there is really an infringement. That's why the counter-notice process exists.
Assuming they can establish that it is, in fact, a violation, they can absolutely sue for monetary damages. The monetary damages would be difficult to quantify and/or prove, but the essential argument would be that by Brian's provision of the videos without the owner's permission, the value the owner is able to receive for owning the material is decreased (i.e. reduced ad revenue on site where it is hosted because it can be accessed elsewhere). If the videos have a substantial number of views, that number could add up to something above and beyond a de minimis amount.
Actually helping with this would require a decent amount of work, research, and knowledge. Is it really that important to have old UFR clips from years ago once you already have the data written down?
I'm just playing devil's advocate and trying to save you a whole bunch of stress. Legal battles are the opposite of a relaxing and enjoyable experience.
Having just been through the ringer in a personal injury lawsuit I have to agree with the not fun. I would go even further as to say disspiriting.
At the same time...I'm not clear on the criteria here or the extent of the downage. If this impedes UFRs going back just one year - this is a major hit to the UFR experience for yours truly. Brian is most times right on but you got to see to believe. And yes ... I have gone back to ancient UFRs ... but not that often.
This potentially sucks for bloggers everywhere. Too bad there isn't a blogger advocacy that could take this up. It would seem big time media is stealing the blogger mode (ie Grantland and chat sites) - they might have some interest in keeping this fair use. IMO blogging has been a big time test lab for their organizations.
That one poster from long ago that studied LAW at MICHIGAN. I remember because he repeatedly mentioned his desire to be a LAWYER after getting his LAW degree from LAW SCHOOL at MICHIGAN. If he didn't get the ban hammer he might be able to help, considering his LAW SCHOOL experience at MICHIGAN.
If you identify someone by outing them at mgoblog, you will receive the ban hammer. This wouldn't be to your profit. Go blue!
I post on occasion. Strangest meme ever, by the way. Look at the number of people in this thread talking about being lawyers or going to law school.
I did get my LAW DEGREE and practice LAW at a LAW FIRM, but not IP LAW.
I see a lot of LAW and LAW SCHOOL and LAWYERING going on here. Gotta love LAWYERS LAWYERING it up after LAW SCHOOL while working for LAW FIRMS and providing pro bono LEGAL "ADVICE" without using LEGALESE. LAW LAW LAW, LAWYER LAWYER LAWYER. Hooray!
i assume i'm not alone in thinking i'd lend you $1000 on a handshake. and you get millions of hits, right?
Did someone want an overhead primary lead relocated off their property? Could I bum an easement off someone?
Time to bevel that guilt, big time.
Brian, I might be able to put you in touch with people who could help if possible.. I assume you can pull up my email from account registration.
Get access to the athletic department's own recording.
Yeah, this is very clearly them trying to push you around. You have to be willing to push back. As a lawyer, with some IP knowledge, I think you definitely have enough with which to push back. But (disclaimer alert!) you are always taking a risk, nothing is ever a sure thing, etc. etc.
Into battle we go. We all go in like Animal House. If that shit doesnt fly we march right the fuck out. br0.
Although, I dont know the source of the video. There is no creative copyrights to the game itself.
Maybe Ty Law can help?
As others have noted - and yes, I am an attorney. Actually, an IP attorney. Not a particularly good one, but it's out there - this looks like a solid fair use argument. Those DMCA notices are so easy to generate, and so onerous on the media provider if proven valid, that most just take down the offending material first and ask questions later. Yes, go copyright protection!
The key issues are always two-fold: (1) the amount of the copyrighted work that you sampled in generating your comment or critique, and if that "amount and substantiality of the portion used" was so great as to co-op or degrade the value of the whole work (in other words, you couldn't copy the whole game, cut out some commercials and some meaningless kick-offs, and say you are making fair use of the IP); and (2) if your sampling profitted you unfairly/to the detriment of the rights-holder. With the first, you sampled small portions of the game to highlight some key moments, and while you are a for-profit site, the level of criticism you used probably protects you. Also, putting shadow boxes and other distnguishing marks on the video probably helps, since it shows an active criticism by you versus simply showing a clip and being "haha FLOYDFLOYDFLOYD!"
As for the latter, the NCAA/ABC/whatever would argue you are hurting their profits because you are "giving away" portions of the game that they could profit from later on via replays. Your clounter would be that you are not re-airing the game (just small snippets), and furthermore you are providing a service that they seemingly do not provide otherwise (play-specific breakdowns for a single team). This actually helps your argument for fair use, since this isn't a market any of the rights-holders seem heavily involved in - nobody at ESPN/ABC/NCAA produce a competing product, so they are not losing a piece of that market to you.
All of this said, it is definitely not a black-white issue. You can seemingly meet all of the factors for fair use according to your peers at mgoblog, yet fail to meet them in court. And as usual, lawsuits are expensive - if it is a legit media company sending the notice, they are probably ready and able for a fight. As others have noted, find someone who practices in this area (while I am a bar member in MI and NY, I don't really practice law in the classical sense) and can lay out the pros and cons.
Good luck Brian. Feel free to e-mail me if you have any questions, though it sounds like other people on the site are equally strong on this topic. In general, I would say reach out to the EFF and also follow up with Youtube - they need to provide you with some information about who filed the DMCA, which might help you figure out if they are a legit company or a troll.