But this is a great show if you're into shady dealings, drugs, killings, etc (btw it's "Breaking Bad" if you've lived under a rock for a while).
Jesse is on the rise. Walt spiraling downward.
that is incredible
I think, in this situation, you can legally contract Jason Statham to destroy said corporate corporation.
Wouldn't contracting a hit potentially expose Brian to other, slightly less serious, legal problems?
Not as long as he uses Jason Statham. There are loopholes for everything these days.
has the time to seek out and destroy UFR clips? What's the pay for a job like that? Seems that money could be better spent, oh, I don't know, feeding starving children or something.
can't help but crack up imagining larry david making that statement, in classic larry david fashion.
I am not a lawyer. Being not a lawyer, you should consider that I am not a lawyer. But in my non-lawyer opinion, I would think it falls under fair use. Did I mention I'm not a lawyer?
So you are a lawyer? No?
So you are addicted to heroine? No?
I do love me some Wonder Woman...
I like to call it a vice. The past few years I have plumitted to rock bottom.
I prefer villainesses.
Why has Craig James not speaken publicly regarding rumors he allegedly killed the lawyers of five hookers he is alleged to have murdered?
don't trust the advice you get from lawyers on the internet.
I have recently taken and passed the bar in IN. While in law school, I took one course on copyright law (which makes me the farthest thing from an expert), and this would definitely seem to fall under the fair use doctrine. If you don't find any other takers, I would be willing to do a little research for you.
It's fair use because you're using a small selection of the toal broadcast for "comment and criticism." You could threaten to countersue under DMCA section 512(f) (misrepresentations) claiming they are overreaching and that might get them to back off.
I can probably help.
I'm familiar with UFRs, but not totally sure what clips this references...just individual plays from the every snap? Or something mimicking the picture pages which involves explanation and a form of telestration?
I think fair use in this case would boil down to 2 issues:
1. The clips themselves. Could you reasonably argue that this is a transformative use? If all the analysis lies in the UFR rather than the clip, the hosting on youtube might be difficult to justify because they can be consumed, if you will, without any of the transformative added value you've contributed.
2. How much is used, which affects 2 things. First, it's effect on the value of the original work, i.e. would someone rather just watch UFR clips than a replay of the game on B1G Network? Secondly, just from a raw percentage perspective, how much is used? If either a substantial amount or crucial parts are, we have a problemo. If it's just something here or there, shouldn't be an issue.
Then again, I'm just a law student who's spending his time on MGoBlog right now instead of reading for class, so I wouldn't trust anything I have to say. 1-800-CALL-SAM.
thanks for putting up a theory at least. now for some non-lawyer, non-mgoblog mod commentary.
1. is the problem about "transformative added value" specifically related to being hosted by YouTube? would merely moving the videos to owned/leased server space be enough? or would it be necessary to actually put analysis into the clips themselves?
2. i'm not sure what is available on youtube or elsewhere, but the videos on UFR are typically short clips (1 play) and probably do not add up to anything constituting a "substantial amount" of the game. "crucial parts" on the other hand, sounds problematic.
If #1 is an issue, could he skip hosting it on a different site and simply mark them as hidden or whatever it is where you can only see it if you get a link to it, so it strongly implies that you would get to it via the UFR? Or if not, would simply copy/pasting the text from that line of the UFR into the description possibly be sufficient?
1. If the videos themselves weren't available independent of the analysis and commentary, this would help. The fact that a copy without any transformation is available for viewing is where this crosses from transformative to derivative, I would say. But as long as accompanied by analysis, actually altering the clips themselves shouldn't be necessary.
2. The reason this is difficult to analyze is because (as my understanding goes) fair use issues are often based heavily on the facts rather than competing authorities. Which is also part of what would possibly make this an ugly fight if the copyright claimant is feeling litigious - a quick resolution would be unlikely.
If the fight is still joined in October, I'll get my draftin' shoes on.
but not an IP lawyer. I kmow enough about copyright law to know when to call an IP lawyer. and you need to call one.
Fair use depends on many circumstances. Whether the use is educational or commercial makes a difference. The blog and UFRs arguably is commercial -- its the source of your income, no? But there are several factors and how a court will resolve them probably requires some legal research.
Or, just destroy their resurrection hub and they'll be forced to negotiate.
... and I agree with this post. You need an IP lawyer. (I have only minimal experience with it.) That said, once you determine the legal strength of your potential counter-claims or defenses, you should also think about these business factors:
Many legal issues, presumably including "fair use," are fact intensive in their outcome. What that means is that, in order to win or lose in court, you will first have to undergo extensive discovery and legal fees associated with it. Threatening companies not only think about that, it is often the main reason they take actions against small companies.
They may think, "even if they could eventually prove I am wrong, a blogger is not up for the fight." That is why (I think) the DMCA provides for atorney fees if you win. But, that provisions is not so useful when winning is thousands of dollars and years away. They may presume you won't actually pay attorneys on the hopes you will get those fees back one day, maybe.
So, go with an IP attorney, but from a business perspective, go with a name they might recognize (or with good credibility in IP) and they will know you are serious about this, which is important. Hopefully, you can find a UM grad in IP who is looking to add to his/her pro bono hours.
Crazy idea, haven't though this through, though. But what I Brian could strike some sort of deal with the BTN and ESPN to use these clips for UFR, as it would give them hits to whatever he's linking. Of course, again that would take lawyers, fees, contracts, etc., things Brian probably doesn't want to deal with/have the funds to deal with.
...but I get the sense the company that is asking them to be taken down already holds (or is using) rights from the networks. So, would he be asking permission for something they are already telling him to stop doing?
Good point, my only thought was that he would be giving them hits to plays that they "own." But I guess they already own the whole thing so people can just watch the whole broadcast. I was thinking his "clips" could some how give them hits, but I am no way computer saavy so I cannot even fathom that.
Continuing in this vein of possible future action, wouldn't it be more advantageous for Brian to work directly with the UM Athletic office to get the rights to get his own footage from the games therefore bypassing the legal rights of ESPN/BTN to their own production of the game. My thought is that they are entitled to protect those assets through some kind of contractual relationship but if Brian/mgoblog get's the right to take their own video footage then there's nothing they can do.
Edit: Of course, you could just finish reading the whole thread (unlike myself) and already come across this idea but whatever, I do what I want.
.... I don't think any of us would want to watch the camera angles and views that Brian would get at the game with his own MGOMovieCameras.
This and the post it is in reply to, are exactly what I think as well. And it's totally not because we lawyers are trained to always say, "you should hire a lawyer" but because we are trained so that we know that you should always hire a lawyer.
Just make sure a good IP lawyer is unboxed first.
Girl Talk is sweet PS.
I've found it is always best to begin the conversation by asking, "Are you familiar with the legal term, 'Suck my dick'?"
Works every time.
PS, I'm totally not allowed to practice law any more.
Should seek Bob Loblaw.
Seriously though, it doesn't seem like a big deal, I don't know why those clips are being taken down. Should claim fair use
Better call Saul.
I hear he's got a lawblog now.
he'll even lob law bombs on your behalf.
Answer: The language used by Congress in Title 17, Section 107 specifically lists ?criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching, scholarship, and research? as examples of uses that might be protected under fair use. However, this list is non-exhaustive, and therefore a use not covered in one of the categories could nonetheless be successfully defended as a fair use. Conversely, not every use that falls within the listed categories will necessarily be found by a court to be fair. For example, not every use of another's work for research or educational purposes will be held to be a fair use. See Encyclopaedia Britannica Educational Corp. v. Crooks, 542 F.Supp. 1156 (W.D.N.Y.1982).
In considering a fair use defense to a claim of infringement, a court will focus its inquiry on the specific facts of the individual case. Therefore, it is very difficult to predict with accuracy what a court will do until it engages in the inquiry. A court will almost always use the four factors listed by Congress as a guide in its inquiry. The four factors listed are:
FACTOR 1: THE PURPOSE AND CHARACTER OF THE USE
This factor considers whether the use helps fulfill the intention of copyright law to stimulate creativity for the enrichment of the general public. The defendant must show how a use either advances knowledge or the progress of the arts through the addition of something new. The more transformative the use, the more likely it is to be fair, whereas if defendant merely reproduces plaintiff's work without putting it to a transformative use, the less likely this use will be held to be fair. Further, the more commercial defendant's use, the less likely such use will be fair.
FACTOR 2: THE NATURE OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
The more creative, and less purely factual, the copyrighted work, the stronger its protection. In order to prevent the private ownership of work that rightfully belongs in the public domain, facts and ideas are separate from copyright?only their particular expression or fixation merits such protection. Second, if a copyrighted work is unpublished, it will be harder to establish that defendant's use of it was fair. See Salinger v. Random House, Inc., 650 F. Supp. 413 (S.D.N.Y. 1986), and in New Era Publications Int'l v. Henry Holt & Co., 695 F. Supp. 1493 (S.D.N.Y. 1988). One commentator noted that "the original author's interest in controlling the circumstances of the first public revelation of his work, and his right, if he so chooses, [is to not] publish at all." While some argue that legal protection of unpublished works should come from the law of privacy rather than the law of copyright, Congress amended the Fair Use doctrine to explicitly note, "The fact that a work is unpublished shall not itself bar a finding of fair use if such finding is made upon consideration of all the above factors."
FACTOR 3: THE AMOUNT AND SUBSTANTIALITY OF THE PORTION DEFENDANT USED
In general, the less of the copyrighted work that is used, the more likely the use will be considered fair. If, however, the defendant copied nearly all of, or the heart of, the copyrighted work, his or her use is less likely to be considered fair. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985).
FACTOR 4: THE EFFECT OF DEFENDANT'S USE ON THE POTENTIAL MARKET OF THE COPYRIGHTED WORK
This factor is generally held to be the most important factor. See Harper & Row, Publishers, Inc. v. Nation Enters., 471 U.S. 539 (1985). This factor considers the effect that the defendant's use has on the copyright owner's ability to exploit his or her original work. The court will consider whether the use is a direct market substitute for the original work. The court may also consider whether harm to a potential market exists. The burden of proof here rests on the defendant for commercial uses, but on the copyright owner for noncommercial uses. See Sony Corp. v. Universal City Studios, 464 U.S. 417, 451 (1984). It is important to note that courts recognize that some market harm may come from fair uses such as parodies or negative reviews, but that such market harm does not militate against a finding of fair use.
Your corporate friends might be liable for damages if you end up spending money on this and they did not consider fair use. A federal district court in CA ruled that an entity such as theirs was liable for damages when it didn't consider fair use. Lenz v. Universal Music Corp, 572 F. Supp. 2d 1150 (N.D. Cal. 2008).
My barely-educated conclusion: What you do is probably fair use. However, you want to seek out a lawyer who will really take a look at this for you because it seems likely that you'll run into this again. Also, my brief foray into fair use over the past several minutes suggests that it's not a black and white issue. Finally, you want to never be involved in a lawsuit.
Disclaimer: please note that my advice should not be taken by anyone ever for any reason. I am in fact a gorilla that has been taught how to type on a computer by a zookeeper. I'm off to eat a frozen watermelon right now.
Side note: CA is notoriously, I would say, "liberal," with their rulings. Doesn't always turn out the same way in every jurisdiction.
EDIT: nothing political meant by the use of "liberal," just that they seem to go farther than the norm.
Also politically liberal rulings
Which is why their bar exam is so much harder than other states'. They have like a 60% pass rate for first time takers. MI is at like 85%
Try taking the Delaware bar exam - three days (with essays on the 3rd day) and a 54% pass rate when I took it. I laugh at the CA exam. Ha!
Do you get neighboring states too with those three days? I know that whole NYC area you can do multiple states at once or was that all three days Delaware?
All 3 for DE. Essay included a question on bankruptcy law! And no reciprocity with any other states.
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.
This is great stuff Bronxblue. I am not an IP attorney and unfortunately can't give you good technical legal advice about the black-letter law involved. However, I can help you locate a good lawyer to work with in MI (if Bronxblue is unable to take it on pro bono - hint, hint). I have a few contacts at big firms there who are so-called "Michigan Men" that might be interested in helping issue formal demand letters, etc. Shoot me an email if you're interested.
The best advice I can give is that, once you start weeding into the world of figuring out how to fight back, if you encounter a lawyer on the other side make sure you have a lawyer as well. Don't try to deal directly with lawyers because they will (1) poo-poo you, and (2) act high-and-mighty and work hard NOT to help resolve things. Lawyers love preying on non-lawyers in these kinds of disputes. Heck, I'll make a phone call for you if you encounter an a--hole attorney. Just let me know - I love f-ing with other lawyers, if only because most of them are tools.
I second bronxblue's breakdown.
Yes, the fair use doctrine 'should' apply based on the information provided. BUT... you have to take into account the potential costs involved if you want to go down that road.
It is frustrating when you feel you're being bullied, but sometimes it's simply better to limit your potential liability than to risk your livelihood because armchair-attorneys want you to fight the power.
I am also an IP attorney but deal exclusively with the patent side of the business. Bronxblue gave you some good advice and I would listen to him. IP challenges are rarely inexpensive to pursue, win or lose.
I know of one firm in Ann Arbor which is exclusively an IP shop. They are a satellite office of a very large IP firm in Chicago. The name of the firm is Brinks, Hofer, Gilson & Lione, and they are on Main Street. They have about 20 IP lawyers in Ann Arbor. I have worked with a couple of the people in that office, although not for a while. The attorney I know locally is a Michigan alum and I would be happy to give you particulars if you want to go that way. I also assume you can find my email address through my user name.
Ad agencies and advertisers get into DCMA/Copyright squabbles all the time. I've dealt with these issues before. Insurance policies and common sense dicate that I can't give legal advice to third parties, and certainly would not do so on a blog.
FWIW I wouldn't hang my hat on a fair use defense (due to Factor 3 being unsettled) but where you are linking to existing content and not posting/embedding you have an argument there. I'm not aware of any successful challenges to simiple linking. These matters usually settle out with some sort of a cease and desist agreement.
When you hire a lawyer, and you should, look for one in Chicago, NY or LA. Michigan-based lawyers don't know much about stuff like this and if they say they do they are lying. It's a matter of volume.
I can recommend Brian Heidelberger at Winston & Strawn, Chicago (although he is an IU grad).
I agree with everything you say. But Brian is not Big Corporation ABC with deep pockets to hire a firm like W&S. We lawyers that enjoy this Blog need to find a way to help out in whatever way we can as long as within ethical guidelines. If someone with expertise that you mention wanted - not meaning to put you or anyone on the spot - they could probably provide some hints as to how he could proceed without establishing any kind of attorney-client relationship or violating any ethical axioms. Malpractice coverage is a non-issue here since there would be no formal legal advice given (use formal disclaimers, etc. if necessary). Friendly advice is always acceptable.
If anyone is interested, email Brian. (Please do not take this post as pressuring anyone - I just wanted to make a point that people can provide tips/ideas without providing formal legal advice).
I would personally help Brian in a second if I felt confident in my abilities in the particular area of copyright law that is the subject of concern. This is one of those times where the best, and potentially least expensive course of action, might well be to talk directly to someone who is a dedicated copyright attorney at the outset.
I'm in the same boat and I'm hoping that Brian never needs to use my corporate bankruptcy experience . . .
Brian email me and I can put you in touch with the IP lawyer for our company, she also handles the work for Playboy Enterprises... U of M grad based in Ann Arbor..
Thought Equity Motion is a tool for the greedy fat cats who make their living off the childhood dreams of football glory and American love of the sport.
Thought Equity Motion works to increase the value of video content through its technology platform and licensing services. The company works with more than 400 rights holders globally, including BBC Motion Gallery, Paramount Pictures, Sony Pictures Entertainment, National Geographic, The New York Times, and the NCAA
This has effectively shut down the UFR for this week. How does this help College Football? It's all about the money.
Walter Camp is not pleased.