tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post6811217416626313814..comments2024-03-28T16:45:51.051+00:00Comments on The IPKat: Uploading goal videos online? A copyright infringement, says FAPL. Is it?Verónica RodrÃguez Arguijohttp://www.blogger.com/profile/05763207846940036921noreply@blogger.comBlogger7125tag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-89177593006778956132016-08-14T06:07:55.707+01:002016-08-14T06:07:55.707+01:00They need to know their place. We the fans are wha...They need to know their place. We the fans are what makes them a lot of money in the first place.Joehttps://www.intensedebate.com/people/fapler4noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-47176750560395056382014-08-19T14:22:01.695+01:002014-08-19T14:22:01.695+01:00The facebook entry:
Hi Andrew, If someone posts c...The facebook entry:<br /><br />Hi Andrew, If someone posts clips of material being broadcast it is possible they are breaching copyright. All social media users should take care to ensure they have the necessary copyright permissions for material that they post.<br /><br />There are a number of exceptions to copyright, including the exception permitting fair dealing with a work for the purpose of reporting current events. Whether the exception could apply in this case would depend on the facts, including whether or not the clip constitutes a 'current event'. Ultimately only a court can rule definitively on whether a particular use is permitted by an exception. Among other things, the courts look at whether the use of the work undermines or competes with existing licensing arrangements.<br /><br />As you can see from sites like [this site]... the debate continues.<br /><br />For more information on copyright exceptions please see:<br /><br />[multiple links omitted]<br /><br />Andrew, I think that your responses are assuming the answer that you want, and missing the point that the news exception may in fact not apply. Further, it is <b>not</b> for want of lack of clarity, as much as it is that the defenses to copyright infringement are written as personal case by case, fact pattern by fact pattern defenses, and the clarity of each case is only available on that case by case level.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-57540412673007215262014-08-15T15:07:30.426+01:002014-08-15T15:07:30.426+01:00From the comments I heard on the Radio 4 Today pro...From the comments I heard on the Radio 4 Today programme, I think some spectators are videoing replays shown on a screen in the ground and not necessarily the match itself. There would be copyright in the replays I imagine.<br /><br />Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-72085318951036873732014-08-15T14:19:14.235+01:002014-08-15T14:19:14.235+01:00Anonymous @ 12:40,
Is there a no-video-may-be-tak...Anonymous @ 12:40,<br /><br />Is there a no-video-may-be-taken policy at the matches?<br /><br />If so, then the fruits of violating that policy would seem to be fair game for control (even on social media), and such control would rely on contract law rather than (solely) copyright law.<br /><br />If not, then even copyright law would <b>not</b> seem to be enough for the league to express control, as it would be the individual that would be earning the copyright by their actions to fix the event (with the event itself un-copyright-able in and of itself) in tangible media and it would be the individual not the league that thus would have control.<br /><br />Here in the States, our football (and all other professional sports at that) prominently announces such contractual controls, so this discussion is largely absent here.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-76442129951513003552014-08-15T13:25:18.921+01:002014-08-15T13:25:18.921+01:00@anon 12:40
That's the way I see it to, and i...@anon 12:40<br /><br />That's the way I see it to, and it seems fairly straightforward too. If the match is not a copyright work, then someone filming a video and then tweeting it surely can't be breaching any copyright?<br /><br />They may be breaking other laws / rules by filming within the stadium (perhaps one of the Terms and Conditions of the admission ticket was not to film the match?), but these are unrelated to copyright.SGhttps://www.blogger.com/profile/14533346450129049222noreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-32649482647313810512014-08-15T13:20:38.703+01:002014-08-15T13:20:38.703+01:00It seems to me that the human rights arguments is ...It seems to me that the human rights arguments is different from the news reporting one. It is a human right to impart and receive ideas and information (whether or not they are newsworthy). In this respect Birss seems to be saying copyright protects 'expression', and cannot interfere with an exchange of 'information'. However I don't know how one would distinguish the two.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.comtag:blogger.com,1999:blog-5574479.post-60081311042023525202014-08-15T12:40:06.640+01:002014-08-15T12:40:06.640+01:00To me, it seems that if the FAPL case concluded th...To me, it seems that if the FAPL case concluded that copyright does not subsist in a match itself, then FAPL should not be able to prevent fans from posting their own videos filmed live at the ground to social media. However, this seems to be what the FAPL is saying is 'against the law' and, presumably, this is something they do wish to crack down on to preserve exclusivity for broadcasters.Anonymousnoreply@blogger.com