Just as a side note to a comment upthread, Katy Perry didn't get paid to perform at halftime. The halftime performers never get paid. But she did tell the NFL to pound sand when they wanted her to pay them to perform.
"Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited"
Of course they intone that. That doesn't mean that A) their appraisal of relative worth is truthful in a subjective sense (they might be lying to use it as leverage); or B) their appraisal is truthful in an objective sense (how could they know without seeing the tape, anyway?).But why do you see it this way? The NFL has intoned that its not that valuable because their footage is BETTER - what is making you feel like you're being disadvantaged by them not writing a blank check to a guy for his crappy footage?
The only case where I have personal knowledge is Shania Twain back in 2003. (I did business with the company that brokered the deal to get Shania for the halftime show.) The NFL might have structured her payment so they could claim that they were paying expenses, but they definitely paid her a performance fee.Just as a side note to a comment upthread, Katy Perry didn't get paid to perform at halftime. The halftime performers never get paid. But she did tell the NFL to pound sand when they wanted her to pay them to perform.
Why is that a moral to the story?If there is a moral to this story, it might be "Don't throw around numbers you don't really mean." Whoever gave that $1 million value a decade ago likely never thought that a tape would ever be found.
Was that now legendary language uttered by anyone when the original broadcast of Super Bowl 1 went over the airwaves? Can the NFL and the networks prove it?"Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited"
I laughed.Was that now legendary language uttered by anyone when the original broadcast of Super Bowl 1 went over the airwaves? Can the NFL and the networks prove it?
Fair enough - since the NFL is not being legally held to that number, it has not had any negative consequence for them. But from a public relations point of view, the gap between $1,000,000 and $30,000 is pretty big.Why is that a moral to the story?
The left sock that Marty Barrett wore when he got his 237th major league hit is also both sports memorabilia and one of a kind, and probably wouldn't fetch $25.This is both sports memorabilia and one of a kind. To value this at $30k when one of a kind items like MMs 71st homer went for $3M is insane.
The NFL doesn't get to rewrite copyright law just by making spurious statements, and the FTC has issued a statement saying that those messages are patently ridiculous--though they declined to take formal action since no consumer would legitimately believe they're a real description of their actual legal rights."Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL's consent is prohibited"
The language tells you all you need to know about how the NFL perceives the value of the broadcast. It's clearly a unique situation that won't arise again. I'm sure people over at NFL Films would love to get the copy, work on restoration, transfer, etc. so they can profit off of it in the future. I don't see how their behavior can be construed as anything but short-sighted and petty.Forty-nine years to the day after the Green Bay Packers and Kansas City Chiefs squared off in Super Bowl I, NFL Network will be the first network to ever replay this historic game on television.
Super Bowl I was broadcast by both NBC -- the official broadcaster of the AFL- and CBS -- the official broadcaster of the NFL and remains the only Super Bowl to have been broadcast live in the United States by two television networks. Considered to be the Holy Grail of sports broadcasts, the CBS and NBC tapes of the game were either lost or recorded over and no full video version of the game has existed ... until now.
This is flat out wrong. You're thinking of trademarks. If people had to protect copyrights, today's Internet - and business in general - would grind to a halt while everyone just focused on that activity.Sure they would. You have to defend your copyrights or you lose them - whether he can show the video is a very different issue than the worth of the video.
How much would you charge for a Wu-Tang album if only one person could buy it?How much would you charge for a cup of coffee if only one person could buy it?
This is crazy talk. It's an artificially restricted market. There's really no question that the NFL sucks in this case, and I really hope this guy calls their bluff. Kickstarter for $500K to televise it being blown up in spectacular fashion on TV with 50% of the proceeds going to CTE and domestic abuse.No, the market is telling Haupt that the low end is $30k, what the NFL offered. There's absolutely no reason to think its higher.
So Al Jazeera America would be his best option (while he still can)?The problem for Haupt is that he'll continue to run into what happened with CBS, because most media outlets are compromised by their contracts with the NFL and won't touch this.
Yes, he could.But he could sell it, for example, to some deep pocketed collector?