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.
NFL to Owner of Only Tape of Super Bowl I Broadcast: Drop Dead
- Thread starter jose melendez
- Start date
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?).
Again: nobody is claiming that the NFL shouldn't protect its own rights. But merely because you have a legal remedy that you could use does not mean that you should use it. Discretion is the better part of valor, and all that.
I would argue that the intent behind the "all recordings shall not be shown without express permission..." language that this dispute more-or-less centers around was not drafted with this situation in mind. It was drafted to prevent people from taping games and selling them, or showing replays, or anything else that would keep money out of the NFL's (and the NFL's sponsors' and advertisers') coffers because the NFL wants to be the sole provider of its own product. That makes total sense. However: that is not the case here, because here the NFL does not even have a copy of its own product. Oops! They lost it. So, even if he sells the tape, Haupt isn't depriving the NFL any money that it might otherwise earn because the NFL does not have the product in question in the first place. That is why the NFL is being petty, because the NFL loses nothing if Haupt sells the tape, unless he sells it to someone with the resources to challenge the NFL. Like, say, CNN/SI.
The fact is, the NFL fucked up by not maintaining a copy of SB I. Now they want to have their cake and eat it, too, by getting a more-or-less free copy from some poor schmuck who happens to have one, so they can make advertising money on replays, and including it in compilation videos, and selling clips to advertisers to make dumb commercials with, etc... So, while the league is absolutely justified, legally, in relying on that clause, I think using it under the guise of righteous, or even principled, authority is laughable.
But at the end of the day, the NFL owns the content, and Haupt owns the tapes.
Last edited:
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.
I'm assuming that's how they structure it with other artists as well.
Last edited:
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?
Secondly, are there some friendly countries out there where this guy could locate a PPV video server or even a DVD burning facility?
Last edited:
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.
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 tape's worth a lot, but not for that reason.
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.
Came across this analysis in the Washington Post.
The author thinks sale is protected (it's just like re-selling an NFL Films DVD) and the NFL's claim would be limited to prohibiting public performances.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/03/are-you-ready-for-some-football-copyright-department/
The author thinks sale is protected (it's just like re-selling an NFL Films DVD) and the NFL's claim would be limited to prohibiting public performances.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/volokh-conspiracy/wp/2016/02/03/are-you-ready-for-some-football-copyright-department/
I've worked in this area in a past life (on the marketing side, but we had to be clear about the copyright law) and the article is correct. At the same time, it's almost a distinction without a difference for Haupt.
The value of the video comes from the ability to monetize the contents. And since public showing of the contents is prohibited, the only way he can realize the value is through documentary-type interviews or productions, where a few minutes of footage would be revealed. (Allowable under the fair use doctrine.) 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.
The other problem is that regardless of the law, the NFL has deep pockets and will litigate the issue to death, which has the effect of scaring away any potential buyer. So Haupt doesn't have many options here.
The value of the video comes from the ability to monetize the contents. And since public showing of the contents is prohibited, the only way he can realize the value is through documentary-type interviews or productions, where a few minutes of footage would be revealed. (Allowable under the fair use doctrine.) 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.
The other problem is that regardless of the law, the NFL has deep pockets and will litigate the issue to death, which has the effect of scaring away any potential buyer. So Haupt doesn't have many options here.
I just don't understand this from the NFL's perspective. Their own press release when they aired the NFL Films version of Super Bowl I opened with the following:
(http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000620927/article/nfl-network-to-reair-super-bowl-i-for-first-time)
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.
(http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap3000000620927/article/nfl-network-to-reair-super-bowl-i-for-first-time)
But again - his copy isn't that - it's not a full copy of the game. What they're saying doesn't apply to his partial copy.
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.
How much would you charge for a Wu-Tang album 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.
