Federal Court Invents A New Intellectual Property Right: The Money Makes It So Exclusive Right To Record

from the wtf? dept

Two years ago we wrote about a troubling case coming out of Wisconsin, in which the Wisconsin Interscholastic Athletic Association (WIAA) claimed that it could allow a single exclusive broadcaster for high school sporting events in the state. The Gannett newspapers challenged this by streaming four different events online, eventually leading to this lawsuit. There were other highly questionable limitations on news media, including a claim that they could not even report play-by-play data. That part is the most ridiculous, as that seems like a clear violation on free speech rights, and also goes against previous caselaw that has allowed the reporting of factual game information. But, stunningly, last year, a district court judge ruled that commerce trumps the First Amendment, and since the WIAA needs to make money, such deals are just fine. This didn't make much sense to us, and we hoped that it would be overturned on appeal.

No such luck.

Ima Fish alerts us to the appeals court ruling which upheld the lower court and seems to endorse the creation of a wholly made up new form of intellectual property right that has no basis in the law. The court clearly says that this is not a copyright case, so copyright law doesn't apply. So what right exactly is WIAA granting to its broadcasting partner? That's not clear at all from the ruling. If it's not copyright, it appears to be something entirely made up by the appeals court, which might be loosely defined as "the right to make up restrictions if it makes money." I'm not joking. The court repeatedly focuses in on the idea that the WIAA needs to make money, and that somehow makes it okay to grant a single company an exclusive license.

I don't see how this makes much sense. I could see that they should be allowed to grant a license to an "official" broadcaster, and even give them additional access, but I don't see how they can stop someone else from recording the material and broadcasting it as well -- especially when they admit that it's not a copyright issue.

And since this new exclusive made up imaginary right has no basis in law, we don't know what any exceptions are. Is there a fair use exception like in copyright? The contract says other agencies can show two minutes of streaming video from events, but it doesn't need to say that, and fair use shouldn't be determined by a contract anyway. The whole thing seems bizarre and troubling, in that it seems to suggest that public entities can create a special kind of exclusive broadcast intellectual property right if they use it to make money.

Separately, one small part of the case struck me as interesting in relation to a different case we talked about recently. In the Zediva case, we thought it was ridiculous that the court declared a paid video broadcast to your home as a public performance because the Zediva service was offered to "the public." Yet, in this case, the court insists that sporting events at public schools (which are open to the public) are, in fact, "nonpublic forums." I don't think either description makes sense. A private home is a private place. A public sporting event is a public event.

Finally, the court seems to totally overstate the situation in the ruling here and suggests a clear misunderstanding of the public domain:
The logical implications of Gannett’s argument are breathtaking. Suppose a high-school orchestra were to perform one of Bach’s Brandenburg Concertos or the drama club put together a rendition of Othello (both of which are in the public domain). Gannett’s argument would require the conclusion that the students have no right to engage in the common practice of packaging their performance and selling it to raise money for school trips.
While some of Gannett's arguments may have risen to that level (it did suggest that public institutions shouldn't be able to make money this way), the court also seems to suggest that just because you can't have exclusivity, you can't make money. That's silly, and wrong.

Gannett is still considering its options, but it can ask for an en banc (full court) review or it can appeal to the Supreme Court. I'm hoping it will fight this, because the ruling seems totally nonsensical.

Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  1. icon
    PrometheeFeu (profile), 29 Aug 2011 @ 2:38pm

    It is important to remember that courts do make a distinction between public places and public forums for First Amendment purposes. So for instance, you can protest on the sidewalk or in a park without having to ask for permission, but you can't protest in a post office. I don't like it, but it may be that stadiums are not public forums. In fact, that sounds pretty likely. Now if only we stopped spending my money on sports, that would be nice.

Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here
Get Techdirt’s Daily Email
Use markdown for basic formatting. HTML is no longer supported.
  Save me a cookie
Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: Techdirt Logo Gear
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.