I don’t pretend to understand (or care) about sporting events, but I can’t ignore the insane copyright claims sporting organizations are claiming.  This including banning fantasy leagues because Major League Baseball "owns" their stats (MLB lost in court) or the National Football League claiming infringement if you showed the Super Bowl on a screen larger than 55 inches.

Today’s New York Times finally gives some attention to the new rules sports teams are trying to place on news organizations, limiting the numbers of photos and videos news outlets and air and for how long, but fails to challenge these ludicrous claims.

The NFL puts rules in place last year limiting clips to 45 seconds and even preventing reporters from airing their own interviews with players.  The NFL loosened these rules for the four networks who already pay $3.7 billion per year to air football.

The MLB now limits news organizations to short videos and no more than seven photos, which must be removed in 72-hours.  The scary thing is that while some news organizations have refused to follow the rules, the Associated Press Sports Editors negotiated looser rules.

The Times gives some insight into the sports organization’s rationale.  Frank Hawkins, senior VP of business affairs at the NFL says “The First Amendment only applies to government,” said Mr. Hawkins. “Even if it is played in a publicly financed stadium it is a private event.”  Bob DuPul, president of MLB, said news organizations are branching out beyond print.  News organizations using multimedia on the web are seen as competitors.

Shockingly, the Times article doesn’t once bring up fair use or challenge the flawed argument that the First Amendment only applies to the government.  The article seems balanced, with quotes from either side, but the result is further confusion of copyright and who controls what in the media.  This article fails to inform, rather it muddles the issue with spin instead of information.

I would, for example, point out that the freedom of the press applies to everything the new media wants to cover.  We want the press free to expose corruption in the government, but also in private businesses and even sporting events (steroids anyone?).

The second issue is fair use, the part of U.S. copyright law that says anyone can use parts of copyrighted material for "criticism, comment, news reporting, teaching" and as long as the reproduction does not harm the market for the source.  The news media does not need permission from anyone to reproduce images or video of the game.  And if news organizations, or even the general public, obtain their own photos, they would own those copyrights and not have to care what the sports teams think.

Lastly, not even about fair use or the First Amendment, sport organizations do not own everything having to do with the game.  MLB went after fantasy leagues claiming they "owned" the statistics related to baseball games, which is more of a fantasy than the leagues themselves.

I find it sad sport organizations so viciously protect their warped sense of intellectual property when they have a sturdier business model than other entertainment media.  While most television fears DVR and time-shifting, sporting events benefit from airing live which encourages viewers to watch games as they air, not skipping commercials, leveraging unpredictability over convenience.  And there’s also tickets for games and the endorsement deals.  With all this money, you’d think these sport companies would want to reward their fans with videos and data and tons of content that makes them bigger fans, who would spend more money.  Or they could just sue.  Place your bets!