A crock
Techdirt: DMCA Takedown For Professor Showing How Copyright Owners Exaggerate Their Rights — The incredible DMCA crock marches onward.
We’ve covered way too many bogus DMCA takedown notices, but sometimes new ones stand out for being extra special. Wendy Seltzer, a law professor who used to work for the EFF and who founded the awesome Chilling Effects clearinghouse for providing an archive of various takedown notices, has apparently received her very own first DMCA takedown notice (found via Boing Boing). Seltzer posted a snippet from the Superbowl for her students to see. Not just any snippet, mind you, but the snippet where its announced: “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or of any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent, is prohibited.” She posted it as an example of a copyright holder exaggerating its rights — as the NFL cannot ban all of the things they ban in that statement. Yes, this is getting more and more ironic.
Update March 06, 2007: YouTube and the NFL apparently backed down:
At least in this case, YouTube seems to be following the DMCA’s notice-takedown-counter-repost dance. Fourteen business days (512(g)’s outer limit) from my counter-notification, I received this email from YouTube:
Dear Wendy,
In accordance with the Digital Millennium Copyright Act, we’ve completed processing your counter-notification regarding your video http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=a4uC2H10uIo. This content has been restored and your account will not be penalized. For technical reasons, it may take a day for the video to be available again.
The NFL has apparently chosen not to sue to keep the video offline. Once again, therefore, viewers can see the NFL’s copyright threats in all their glory.
*cough* found by me *cough*
Dictionary.com: audience 2. the persons reached by a book, radio or television broadcast, etc.; public: Some works of music have a wide and varied audience.
that means, anyone their telecast reaches is their audience, and has the privilege of using the telecast. that means, anyone who watches it online later, is their audience, and has that privilege. their copyright notice is useless?
“for the private use of our audience” No mass distribution (ie YouTube)
Also, it would prohibit selling it and such.
That said, going after someone for displaying the warning… hogwash. I would say it applies to the game, saying the NFL owns that phrase is rediculous. Although I guess it is an “image” displaying that phrase… in which case type it out and display it? Either way it’s obviously stupid.
I bet the notice was automated. That, or some lawyer decided she posted it as a dare and got all huffy about using their own stupid notice to make them look stupid.
Don’t they realize they do that all by themselves?
Furthermore, how could the account of an event, such as a sporting event, ever be restricted via copyright laws? Yes, seems pretty ridiculous to me.
Some things are so stupid they defy a comment.
Apparently the weasels at the NFL are not aware of Title 17 Chapter of the U.S. Code.
17:1 exempts Seltzer from the parts of the copyright law they claim she violated.
Specifically if Prof. Seltezer used the snipped, even though it is copyrighted, as part of legitimate criticism, then her activity is protected by federal law — even to the point of using trademarked logos.
How ironic she was using it as an example of copyright owners overstating the NFL’s rights.