Cover 1 Denied Press Credentials by Bills PR Staff

[Mr. WEO]

1 hour ago, Fingon said:

The DMCA requires the NFL to take Fair Use under consideration before issuing take down notices. Most likely the NFL realized they had little legal recourse and opted to black list Cover 1 instead.

 

Has any other team blocked them?  Why is this not just the Bills not wanting the guy on the property at this time?

[snafu]

3 hours ago, Chandler#81 said:

A repetitive word is being liberally tossed around here.

 

Nonsense.

 

History has taught us what’s Nonsense today will be tomorrow’s norm.

 

Perhaps. But today it is still nonsense. 

 

 

42 minutes ago, K-9 said:

That was my assumption; that use of their All 22 product would be protected by copyright. So I guess we’re back to the editorial free use argument. 

 

But none of the NFL’s protection policies mean much if they enforce them discriminately. Which seems to be the case as far as how other providers routinely disseminate their All 22 product. 

 

Not calling your point nonsense, but I think the NFL catches up to everyone, eventually.

 

 

Edited August 3, 2019 by snafu

[K-9]

1 minute ago, snafu said:

 

Perhaps. But today it is still nonsense. 

 

I think the NFL catches up to everyone, eventually.

 

One would think. But it's been several years since Jeremy White was issued his cease and desist order and since then countless other providers around the world have disseminated All 22 footage in the same way. And I just haven't heard of a bunch of providers having to cease and desist. 

1 hour ago, Fingon said:

The DMCA requires the NFL to take Fair Use under consideration before issuing take down notices. Most likely the NFL realized they had little legal recourse and opted to black list Cover 1 instead.

Wish I has seen this a few minute earlier. That explains why the NFL may not be too upset about some of it's internet based products. 

 

Jeremy White should get back into the All 22 analysis business. 

[Don Otreply]

I find it humorous that many here seem to happily defend the interests of a multi-billion dollar corporate monopoly, and then in turn question the ethics of a couple of guys doing pod casts and YouTube content about a game and team we all like to watch.  Bloody amazing.

 

Go Bills!!! 

 

 

 

[Lurker]

34 minutes ago, K-9 said:

And I just haven't heard of a bunch of providers having to cease and desist. 

 

How did this thread morph from Eric not getting a press pass to so much talk about cease and desist orders?    

[YoloinOhio]

6 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

I’m a bit late to the party on this one but it appears that the crew at Cover 1 was denied press credentials by the Buffalo Bills PR Staff.

 

 

On Twitter Erik Turner seemed to think that the Bills were not giving press access to any blogs.  However WGR’s Nate Geary talked about this on the Moranalytics podcast.  He said that he knows people from the Bills PR, and the situation isn’t about Cover 1 being a blog or that the team doesn’t respect their work.

 

According to Nate, it’s the fact that Cover 1 uses 90% of the NFL’s intellectual property on their site between film reviews, photos, videos etc for free.  He thinks that under Roger Goodell the NFL wants to protect their IP as much as possible and sees blogs like Cover 1 who distribute content for free potentially detracting from fans purchasing NFL Game Pass.   Because of this the Bills are weary to provide access to outlets that use their content in this way.  

 

I have often been critical of Turner in the past but, I don’t know, I feel that Cover 1 might have a legit gripe.  

 

For instance Jerry Sullivan was issued credentials this year because he has a morning show on 1270 AM The Fan which doesn’t really have the best signal.  While I’m sure his morning show provided a bit of a boost in their ratings, I am sure they absolutely dwarf what WGR and other morning shows in the market draw.  Of course, Sully is (whether people want to believe it or not) a respected journalist in the sports world - especially around Buffalo.  Still, I would believe that an outlet with like Cover 1 - with multiple products such as social media, podcasts, blogs, videos, etc probably pulls in a

much higher audience than 1270 AM or some of the smaller outlets who were issued credentials.  

I didn’t read this thread except for the OP and I’m late to respond but I know for a fact it’s policy of many, if not all teams, to not credential bloggers. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, YoloinOhio said:

I didn’t read this thread except for the OP and I’m late to respond but I know for a fact it’s policy of many, if not all teams, to not credential bloggers. 

So then it would appear that Cover 1's use of All 22 footage isn't the limiting factor, after all, as had been speculated by Nate Geary's contact in the Bills' PR dept. 

[YoloinOhio]

28 minutes ago, K-9 said:

So then it would appear that Cover 1's use of All 22 footage isn't the limiting factor, after all, as had been speculated by Nate Geary's contact in the Bills' PR dept. 

All I know is that I spoke specifically to a NFL personnel guy with another team about this recently and he said “we do not credential bloggers and I don’t know anyone who does”

[LeGOATski]

59 minutes ago, K-9 said:

So then it would appear that Cover 1's use of All 22 footage isn't the limiting factor, after all, as had been speculated by Nate Geary's contact in the Bills' PR dept. 

That would seem really nit-picky. The press does the same for their analysis. Both parties are paying the NFL for content.

 

I think the issue was previously mentioned by another poster: they simply haven't adapted to the blogging/social media system. They don't have a set of standards to determine which bloggers should be considered "press" and which shouldn't, so they can't reasonably accept one while denying others at this point.

 

It'll happen eventually. Less and less people are going to ESPN/local news/etc for their team coverage and analysis.

[Buffalo716]

1 hour ago, YoloinOhio said:

All I know is that I spoke specifically to a NFL personnel guy with another team about this recently and he said “we do not credential bloggers and I don’t know anyone who does”

This should end thread

 

There are credible scouts who don't even have press credentials. It's not a Right

[boater]

To summarize the situation:

• Cover-1 appropriately uses "fair use"
• However, their comprehensiveness of total games Cover-1 comes close to inappropriate but doesn't cross the line
• The NFL (via the Bills organization) feels hinky about the situation and don't want to grant Cover-1 further access (via formal creds), which is totally their right to deny

I'll take another Mich Ultra.. I know light beer sucks,  but I'm fighting a battle of the bulge.

Edited August 4, 2019 by boater

[leh-nerd skin-erd]

2 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

I find it humorous that many here seem to happily defend the interests of a multi-billion dollar corporate monopoly, and then in turn question the ethics of a couple of guys doing pod casts and YouTube content about a game and team we all like to watch.  Bloody amazing.

 

Go Bills!!! 

 

 

 

100% agreed.  I started a podcast based on Cover 1's work, called it Prevent D, taped their show and interspersed my own commentary to kick it up a notch.  I also said "Brought to you by Verisan". Now everyone is pissed at me--the NFL, cover Q1, You Tube and the phone company.  There isn't even a Verisan, I made that part up. 

[Phil The Thrill]

5 hours ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm not familiar with what Jeremy White did.

 

As far as Eric Turner, he's (I think) skating on the "transformative purpose" loophole of "fair use".  Meaning that by taking the NFL's copyright material and adding X's and O's and commentary about the plays being run, he is commenting upon and criticizing a copyright work enhanced by using some of the copyright material, to the public benefit.

 

https://fairuse.stanford.edu/overview/fair-use/what-is-fair-use/

 

That may mean the NFL's lawyers assessed the situation and decided it wasn't worth the David vs Goliath PR kneecapping they'd take for a contestable case

Doesn't make it wholly ethical in my book

 

Fair use is very much gray area.  Find out many court cases on copyright have been won with fair use as a defense...not many.  

 

I do agree with your assessment about Cover 1 not being big enough for the NFL to spend any time, effort or money over.  I think they simply don’t care enough to take action.

 

The Bills on the other hand probably don’t want to get heat from the NFL for credentialing a blogger who profits from redistributing their content.  

4 hours ago, Fingon said:

The DMCA requires the NFL to take Fair Use under consideration before issuing take down notices. Most likely the NFL realized they had little legal recourse and opted to black list Cover 1 instead.

 

Or they just don’t care enough to act.   

2 hours ago, K-9 said:

So then it would appear that Cover 1's use of All 22 footage isn't the limiting factor, after all, as had been speculated by Nate Geary's contact in the Bills' PR dept. 

 

Could be....but Nate knows the Cover 1 guys and essentially covers the Bills (through WGR), so it’s not out of the realm that he be up on the situation.  I believe what he said - the Bills are being proactive to comply with the way the NFL wants fo protect their IP

[TSOL]

Aw man, this sucks cuz I just love me some bootleg NFL coverage 

[Da webster guy]

9 hours ago, K-9 said:

That’s what we all do. At least those of us with more than a casual interest in what’s going on in the game. Heck, that’s what color analysts try to do on a play to play basis. 

 

If anything, Cover 1 generates more interest in the product by engaging fans, educating them, and making the NFL product more interesting. I’d think the Bills would be grateful.

 

Exactly.   They should be grateful if they understood that any type of content that promotes a greater understanding of the game and more insight into their players for the fans is a good thing.   Sounds like the issue is the decisions are being made by people that don't understand that.   Having an MBA and working in marketing I have to laugh at some of the decisions these football organizations make. 

 

They would get crushed in any other business with that type of shortsightedness, but they have a monopoly and a great product so whatever decisions they make doesn't really matter. 

 

It's why I laugh at the Russ Brandon stuff and how he was such a "genius" at marketing.   Uh yeah, OK.  Monopolies sell no matter what.

[RichRiderBills]

NFL has no case. This is ridiculous. Erik also works for the Athletic correct? A legit press agency. 

 

Turner isnt selling NFL footage...he's altering that by providing his analysis and commentary, added graphics, insight etc. Thats the total package of what he sells.

 

He's taking footage the NFL has already put in the public domain with no reasonable expectation of privacy.

 

No different than any blogger or review show that shows portions or clips of movies.

 

Yes, things like Cover1 do make the NFL a richer scene and promote the product. 

 

The no access for bloggers is just silly. Blogger is just a meaningless term. Its still publishing...and still content. May entertainment industires like comics and movies offer access , passes, and free material, to certain bloggers , independent reviewers, fanzines, often uplifting them beyond this.

 

The Goodell era continues to be a joke.

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by RichRiderBills

[NewEra]

9 hours ago, ChevyVanMiller said:

If I were to predict the future I would say that within 5 years the over-whelming majority of press passes given out will be to Podcast and online websites. Sort of like how the Grammys snubbed rap music at first, thinking it was just a passing fad of a niche market.

 

The old media is dying and podcasts are both the present and the future.

It’s pathetic that Rakim has zero Grammys, while Drake has 1649 of them.  Travesty 

[Cruiserplayer]

Cover 1 is good at they what the do. I love reading what they have to say, but they do provide a cliff note version on how to attack to our defense and how to defend our offense. As a fan I want them covering The Bills.  However if I was a member of the organization I would not accommodate them.

[bills11]

48 minutes ago, Cruiserplayer said:

Cover 1 is good at they what the do. I love reading what they have to say, but they do provide a cliff note version on how to attack to our defense and how to defend our offense. As a fan I want them covering The Bills.  However if I was a member of the organization I would not accommodate them.

Ultimately the last part is what matters ..the Bills probably don't hand out credentials to non mainstream media I'm guessing could be wrong  . Technically anyone could start a podcast or YouTube channel and request credentials ..I don't think they would deny them to someone known like chris Simms maybe . 

[RichRiderBills]

NFL can say whatever they wish in their disclaimer. Its not really binding if its illegal.

 

Look at Bleacher Report 10 years ago. That site was no more than fan postings. Turner works for the Athletic . He's credible.

Edited August 4, 2019 by RichRiderBills

[Phil The Thrill]

43 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

NFL can say whatever they wish in their disclaimer. Its not really binding if its illegal.

 

Look at Bleacher Report 10 years ago. That site was no more than fan postings. Turner works for the Athletic . He's credible.

 

His credibility doesn’t seem to be questioned.  It’s more of an issue with how he uses NFL property for profit on his site/social media 

7 hours ago, Cruiserplayer said:

Cover 1 is good at they what the do. I love reading what they have to say, but they do provide a cliff note version on how to attack to our defense and how to defend our offense. As a fan I want them covering The Bills.  However if I was a member of the organization I would not accommodate them.

 

Why would you not accommodate them?

[BobChalmers]

18 hours ago, SDS said:

 

Please. Get real. You have no idea what you are talking about. Laughable. 

 

My condolences. 

 

Quite the arguments you offer - very convincing...  

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by BobChalmers

[BobChalmers]

16 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

That All 22 subscription "right of usage" agreement states it is for personal , non-commercial use only--like virtually all other subscription agreements do.

 

http://www.nfl.com/help/terms?template=mobile-light&confirm=true

 

1. Copyright Rights

We own or license all copyright rights in the text, images, photographs, video, audio, graphics, user interface, and other content provided on the Services, and the selection, coordination, and arrangement of such content (whether by us or by you), to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries. Except as expressly provided in this Agreement, you are prohibited from copying, reproducing, modifying, distributing, displaying, performing or transmitting any of the contents of the Services for any purposes, and nothing otherwise stated or implied in the Services confers on you any license or right to do so.

 

You may use the Services and the contents contained in the Services solely for your own individual non-commercial and informational purposes only. Any other use, including for any commercial purposes, is strictly prohibited without our express prior written consent. Systematic retrieval of data or other content from the Services, whether to create or compile, directly or indirectly, a collection, compilation, database or directory, is prohibited absent our express prior written consent.

 

I subscribe to the Tidal music service which give me virtually unlimited access to recorded (i.e., copyright protected) albums.   That doesn't mean I get to download and re-edit the material so I can personally benefit from that transformation of the original IP...

 

A company stating what they want does not make it the law - as they admit in their caveat above:

 

"to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries."

 

Editorial use is why you can do movie reviews with edited clips, and news commentary, with edited clips, AND sports analysis with edited clips on the commercial entity YouTube - which runs ads on most videos (unless you pay them subscription fees).

 

In other news - for the purpose of commenting/analyzing/editorializing - people often post game and all-22 clips HERE on TBD - a site which makes money by running ads!

 

Having said that - the NFL could cut the Cover 1 guys off from subscribing to their All-22.  Not very practical though. 

 

 

[Boca BIlls]

Guys I think we have enough people reporting on the same stories.

[\GoBillsInDallas/]

FYI here is the Dallas Cowboys media policy:

 

https://www.dallascowboys.com/credential-policies

 

 

[Mat68]

I assume it's more to do with the fact they are reporting plays and concepts being practiced.  Its nieve and presumptuous to think they are the only ones who can see what kind of plays and concepts being practiced.  Breaking down the formation and actual concept in the method they are imo breaks an unwritten rule is journalism.  They have an extra level of access at St. John Fisher vs practices at OBD.  Actually, treating it like scouting will move them to moving from the training camp methodology and practicing in a controlled environment at OBD.  If the trip to Carolina goes well imo that will be the new training camp move.  1 week travel as a team practice vs an opposing team.  They have a state of the art recovery and rehabilitation during the most intense practicing it sits empty and not used.  It wont take much for them decide to practice at home for training camp.

[BobChalmers]

56 minutes ago, \GoBillsInDallas/ said:

FYI here is the Dallas Cowboys media policy:

 

https://www.dallascowboys.com/credential-policies

 

Thanks - as others have said already - the NFL (like many "content creators") is still struggling with how to deal with the new media realities.  They try to address some of it by providing their own cable and internet access, but the value added of the new media isn't the medium, it's the diversity.  They just can't be all things to all their fans - or at least not without investing a lot more money with dubious return on investment.

 

In fairness re: press credentials - just one example of the struggle - there's a limit to how many passes you can hand out, and even how many people you can vet.  How to decide who's real and who's just some guy.  Cover 1 does great work that appeals to a hard core sliver of the fan base, but  their YouTube videos/broadcasts only get hits in the hundreds. The internet/social media create a blurry line between "real" press and wonky part-timers.

 

In other realms where (unlike the NFL) there is no content monopoly and the overall dollar values are much smaller, the proliferation of outlets is generally welcomed - they have much less to lose, and happily accept all the publicity they can get.

 

btw - feel free to d/l, edit, and distribute any of my papers or online content!  Just attribute it!  We researchers will generally take all the visibility we can get!  

 

 

 

 

Edited August 4, 2019 by BobChalmers

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

3 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

His credibility doesn’t seem to be questioned.  It’s more of an issue with how he uses NFL property for profit on his site/social media 

 

Why would you not accommodate them?

..as I posted earlier in the thread, this is ALL McDermott......he wants minimal media exposure, accommodating only those he has to....barring our constructions workers setting up the Fisher Camp from being near the field they were practicing on until HE "issued the all clear" is a bit over the top.....I solemnly swear and attest they did not have direct feeds to Belichick or Putin...seriously?..........this is our 20th year and Mueller NEVER had to investigate us.........

[Lurker]

2 hours ago, BobChalmers said:

 

A company stating what they want does not make it the law - as they admit in their caveat above:

 

"to the full extent provided under the copyright laws of the United States and other countries."

 

Editorial use is why you can do movie reviews with edited clips, and news commentary, with edited clips, AND sports analysis with edited clips on the commercial entity YouTube - which runs ads on most videos (unless you pay them subscription fees).

 

In other news - for the purpose of commenting/analyzing/editorializing - people often post game and all-22 clips HERE on TBD - a site which makes money by running ads!

 

Having said that - the NFL could cut the Cover 1 guys off from subscribing to their All-22.  Not very practical though. 

 

 

 

Pretty weak arguments, IMO.

 

"A company stating what they want does not make it the law"

 

     A subscriber checking the "I agree" box on the terms and conditions registration form makes it a binding legal agreement.   

 

"Editorial use is why you can do movie reviews with edited clips, and news commentary, with edited clips, AND sports analysis with edited clips on the commercial entity YouTube"

 

    Movie review clips are provided by studios to reviewers--they are not just copied willy nilly from the actual movie.   News commentary is in the public domain.   Pro sports analysis (using copyrighted footage) can be found on the Internet but its essentially whack a mole--most of those clips get taken down if the league goes to the trouble of enforcing their rights.

 

"people often post game and all-22 clips HERE on TBD - a site which makes money by running ads!"

 

    Individual posters get nothing for posting here.  SDS making money on ads is irrelevant and not at all similar to Cover 1 charging for premium content.

 

 

[OldTimeAFLGuy]

Just now, Lurker said:

 

Pretty weak arguments, IMO.

 

"A company stating what they want does not make it the law"

 

     A subscriber checking the "I agree" box on the terms and conditions registration form makes it a binding legal agreement.   

 

"Editorial use is why you can do movie reviews with edited clips, and news commentary, with edited clips, AND sports analysis with edited clips on the commercial entity YouTube"

 

    Movie review clips are provided by studios to reviewers--they are not just copied willy nilly from the actual movie.   News commentary is in the public domain.   Pro sports analysis (using copyrighted footage) can be found on the Internet but its essentially whack a mole--most of those clips get taken down if the league goes to the trouble of enforcing their rights.

 

"people often post game and all-22 clips HERE on TBD - a site which makes money by running ads!"

 

    Individual posters get nothing for posting here.  SDS making money on ads is irrelevant and not at all similar to Cover 1 charging for premium content.

 

 

 

...nice assessment bud....and knowing SDS's commitment, I'd bet he covers his costs of the site as "BEST CASE"......

[Phil The Thrill]

2 hours ago, Lurker said:

 

Pretty weak arguments, IMO.

 

"A company stating what they want does not make it the law"

 

     A subscriber checking the "I agree" box on the terms and conditions registration form makes it a binding legal agreement.   

 

"Editorial use is why you can do movie reviews with edited clips, and news commentary, with edited clips, AND sports analysis with edited clips on the commercial entity YouTube"

 

    Movie review clips are provided by studios to reviewers--they are not just copied willy nilly from the actual movie.   News commentary is in the public domain.   Pro sports analysis (using copyrighted footage) can be found on the Internet but its essentially whack a mole--most of those clips get taken down if the league goes to the trouble of enforcing their rights.

 

"people often post game and all-22 clips HERE on TBD - a site which makes money by running ads!"

 

    Individual posters get nothing for posting here.  SDS making money on ads is irrelevant and not at all similar to Cover 1 charging for premium content.

 

 

 

Most of the All 22 footage that shows up here is hosted on social sites, namely Twitter or YouTube

[Buffalo716]

Idk why this is even a big deal. He is an amateur sports blogger/ writer 

 

99% of people cannot get credentials.  

 

If he really wants them he should get a job at the Buffalo news and then he can get them fairly quick

 

 

[K-9]

If Eric Turner really wants press credentials, perhaps he should ask the team what is required to obtain them. Then he can make up his mind if it’s still worth pursuing or not.

[Buffalo716]

4 hours ago, Mat68 said:

I assume it's more to do with the fact they are reporting plays and concepts being practiced.  Its nieve and presumptuous to think they are the only ones who can see what kind of plays and concepts being practiced.  Breaking down the formation and actual concept in the method they are imo breaks an unwritten rule is journalism.  They have an extra level of access at St. John Fisher vs practices at OBD.  Actually, treating it like scouting will move them to moving from the training camp methodology and practicing in a controlled environment at OBD.  If the trip to Carolina goes well imo that will be the new training camp move.  1 week travel as a team practice vs an opposing team.  They have a state of the art recovery and rehabilitation during the most intense practicing it sits empty and not used.  It wont take much for them decide to practice at home for training camp.

SJF will not be hosting camp in the next few years I predict

 

The facilities at home are just too good and they spent a bunch on them

 

And yes, real journalists do not break down concepts and the like... They report facts , not play scout

[Cruiserplayer]

7 hours ago, Phil The Thrill said:

Why would you not accommodate them?

They may give an angle that would help an opponent.

[Mat68]

6 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

SJF will not be hosting camp in the next few years I predict

 

The facilities at home are just too good and they spent a bunch on them

 

And yes, real journalists do not break down concepts and the like... They report facts , not play scout

I agree.  Depending on how the trip to Carolina goes, that could be the team building/bonding lost by training at home.  The recovery and everything they have in place makes too much sense not to utilize it this time of the year.  The team is dealing with bumps and bruises now.  Having D3 facilities vs state of the art is really a no brainer.

[RichRiderBills]

54 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Idk why this is even a big deal. He is an amateur sports blogger/ writer 

 

99% of people cannot get credentials.  

 

If he really wants them he should get a job at the Buffalo news and then he can get them fairly quick

 

 

Erik is a pro...he's a member of The Athletic staff and makes money off his Cover1 work.

 

Sorry, he's bonafide.

[Buffalo716]

12 minutes ago, RichRiderBills said:

Erik is a pro...he's a member of The Athletic staff and makes money off his Cover1 work.

 

Sorry, he's bonafide.

Being a professional writer doesn't make you a professional scout, tho he does have an audience

 

He has never been employed in football by a team, in a scouting or coaching capacity

 

He gets paid to write

Edited August 4, 2019 by Buffalo716

[RichRiderBills]

17 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Being a professional writer doesn't make you a professional scout, tho he does have an audience

 

He has never been employed in football by a team, in a scouting or coaching capacity

 

He gets paid to write

 

He's been a coach . Im not sure the point. He is a pro...he gets paid. 

[BullBuchanan]

19 minutes ago, Buffalo716 said:

Being a professional writer doesn't make you a professional scout, tho he does have an audience

 

He has never been employed in football by a team, in a scouting or coaching capacity

 

He gets paid to write

So, because he doesn't do something for a living his skills and expertise do not have merit?