Prickly Pete Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 (edited) Broadly, yes. It would be deciding whether the individual has the legal right to sell the tape to a collector. That would go to two factors essentially: 1) Is it copyrighted? 2) Does the copyright prevent the individual from selling the tape to a third party (as distinct from preventing him from broadcasting it to an audience). As ever, my knowledge is based on the UK law.... but I believe the US law is not dissimilar in this area. Given cross border copyright issues there are necessarily pretty standard principles. EDIT: If the NFL is successful in proving it is copyrighted (and what I read leads me to believe it would be) then it would no doubt argue that selling the tape is a breach of their copyright as it still amounts to dissemination and a desire to profit on the back of their intellectual property. I think it would prima facie have a strong case and if I was advising the individual concerned I'd advise him not to put the NFL to proof.... but he could if he wanted to. Of course if I was advising someone in that context I would have advised them not to approach the NFL in the first place but approach a private sports memorabilia collector and try and sell it that route. This is what I thought right away. His mistake was taking it to the NFL. He could secretly sell it, and the NFL couldn't prove it, if the buyer is willing to keep it private. It would only add to it's history, and value. Edited February 3, 2016 by HoF Watkins
GunnerBill Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 I didn't think the copyright was in question. If not, he has no case. He does insofar as the terms of that copyright can be argued in front of a court. I mean I think he'd lose and that is what I would be advising him but he is free to sell it and make the NFL sue him and put them to proof if he likes.
John in Jax Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 I know we're supposed to give the knee jerk reaction that the NFL is in the wrong, but $30,000 for an old videotape sounds a lot more reasonable than $1M. Have you seen what some people pay for so-called "art!?" Sometimes it's in the millions, and to millions of people, it usually looks like worthless crap. LOL This item has real, historical & emotional value (to the NFL).
Mr. WEO Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 He does insofar as the terms of that copyright can be argued in front of a court. I mean I think he'd lose and that is what I would be advising him but he is free to sell it and make the NFL sue him and put them to proof if he likes. Going to court to prove the copyright is valid (no one has challenged it so far) seems like a strange way to spend money. I don't understand what argument he would make. That's what I was saying.
GunnerBill Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Going to court to prove the copyright is valid (no one has challenged it so far) seems like a strange way to spend money. I don't understand what argument he would make. That's what I was saying. I don't disagree. But I have known people go to court with more ridiculous challenges than that in my time and some have even won.
Malazan Posted February 3, 2016 Posted February 3, 2016 Many NFL fans would love to see the game. The NFLs actions deprive the fans from seeing it. They are in the wrong here. They should work something out. Uhh...you know the game was already broadcast, right? This tape is missing small chunks and one large chunk. The NFL would be using in addition to the existing footage that already aired.
Saxum Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 I'm glad I wasn't around you during Y2K Be glad I was around; I needed to fix a lot of systems for Y2K.
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Maybe he should offer it to CBS? That would be interesting...
KD in CA Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Have you seen what some people pay for so-called "art!?" Sometimes it's in the millions, and to millions of people, it usually looks like worthless crap. LOL This item has real, historical & emotional value (to the NFL). Which explains why they offered a fair price for it. The vast majority of art doesn't sell for anywhere near a million dollars. Clearly this guy did not think through the true market for his product, which is only the NFL, and let greed get the best of him. He should have taken the $30k and ran to the bank. Too bad, oh well. Exactly.
bbb Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Be glad I was around; I needed to fix a lot of systems for Y2K.
John in Jax Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 Which explains why they offered a fair price for it. The vast majority of art doesn't sell for anywhere near a million dollars. LOL The item in question here is a ONE-OF-A-KIND, historical piece. Comparing it to the "vast majority of art" is laughable. Rare, one-of-a-kind art pieces USUALLY do sell for MILLIONS. And this guy only wants ONE million.
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) LOL The item in question here is a ONE-OF-A-KIND, historical piece. Comparing it to the "vast majority of art" is laughable. Rare, one-of-a-kind art pieces USUALLY do sell for MILLIONS. And this guy only wants ONE million. It's not his to sell. It's the NFL's copyrighted content. The $30,000 offer under these circumstances was a gift that he turned his nose up at. He's just dumb. Why doesn't he just make and sell bootleg movie DVDs like his colleagues? Edited February 4, 2016 by Mr. WEO
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) LOL The item in question here is a ONE-OF-A-KIND, historical piece. Comparing it to the "vast majority of art" is laughable. Rare, one-of-a-kind art pieces USUALLY do sell for MILLIONS. And this guy only wants ONE million. KD in CT hates this guy for some reason. It's not his to sell. It's the NFL's copyrighted content. The $30,000 offer under these circumstances was a gift that he turned his nose up at. He's just dumb. You guys must be great hagglers. This guy can get more than the pittance offered by the NFL, but for some reason you guys like the idea of this him getting !@#$ed over by the these billionaires. Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 KD in CT hates this guy for some reason. You guys must be great hagglers. This guy can get more than the pittance offered by the NFL, but for some reason you guys like the idea of this him getting !@#$ed over by the these billionaires. For "some reason"?? How is it possible you still don't understand that this is not his property to sell? HE even knows that now...which is why he hasn't sold it. This is no different than selling pirated movies.
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 (edited) For "some reason"?? How is it possible you still don't understand that this is not his property to sell? HE even knows that now...which is why he hasn't sold it. This is no different than selling pirated movies. But he does own the only copy, and eventually it will become public domain. WEO, are you an economist, or involved in finance? Edited February 4, 2016 by HoF Watkins
NorthBuffaloKid Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 He can destroy it, though. He could start a gofundme site. I'd be willing to kick in some money to watch him burn the tape and then send the ashes to NFL headquarters. Jerks...They make millions a minute on the Superbowl and can't realistically negotiate for a true historical item... SMH
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 He can destroy it, though. He could start a gofundme site. I'd be willing to kick in some money to watch him burn the tape and then send the ashes to NFL headquarters. Jerks...They make millions a minute on the Superbowl and can't realistically negotiate for a true historical item... SMH Exactly. If he is smart, he will get as much publicity as possible. Eventually a wealthy collector will contact him, and he can work out a way to get more than $30,000, legally, or illegally (or more likely, somewhere in between).
Mr. WEO Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 But he does own the only copy, and eventually it will become public domain. WEO, are you an economist, or involved in finance? It requires knowledge in neither of those fields to realize this guy has no case--and that it doesn't matter if he has the only copy. He can only sell if the NFL syas he can. Let him go away until it is public domain (if he is still alive) and then he can get his "million dollars". Let him sell it illegally already... who cares? Just get him to stop whining about it. This is a guy who wanted $25,000 from CBS to show up for a pre-SB interview over this silly story of his.
Prickly Pete Posted February 4, 2016 Posted February 4, 2016 It requires knowledge in neither of those fields to realize this guy has no case--and that it doesn't matter if he has the only copy. He can only sell if the NFL syas he can. Let him go away until it is public domain (if he is still alive) and then he can get his "million dollars". Let him sell it illegally already... who cares? Just get him to stop whining about it. This is a guy who wanted $25,000 from CBS to show up for a pre-SB interview over this silly story of his. I'm just trying to get an understanding of the kind of guy who enjoys seeing a person get lowballed by the NFL.
Recommended Posts