Cover 1 Denied Press Credentials by Bills PR Staff

[Steve Billieve]

44 minutes ago, SDS said:

 

That’s just nonsense.

 

Your argument is no different than someone posting ripped music on their server and claiming they’re doing the artist a favor by exposing them to more people. If a musician or the NFL wanted to give away their product they are well within their rights to do that. I think they’re smart enough to know what’s in their best interest.

 

Firstly, I ignore him like the plague. Secondly, in past years he has tried to charge for access on his site. I do not know if that has changed.

 

I wouldn't say its nonsense.  We're not talking about charging people to watch old games or anything.  People have the right to fair use and that extends to educational/teaching efforts as well as general discussion.  I don't see anything on cover1.net that couldn't be said to fall into those categories.

 

Perhaps the reason the NFL has been very selective in their enforcement is they are afraid they will lose in many cases.

[hondo in seattle]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

Jeremy White was served with a cease and desist from the NFL for doing what Eric does. I think this was two years ago. 

 

How Eric has not been taken to court is beyond me. He takes NFL footage for free and tries to charge people money to view that material. 

 

I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here.  While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage.  I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights.  They go for his analysis.  

[HappyDays]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

How Eric has not been taken to court is beyond me. He takes NFL footage for free and tries to charge people money to view that material. 

 

To play devil's advocate, there is now an infinite number of gifs from shows, movies, etc. I doubt every one of those is sanctioned by the copyright holder of the original material. Cover 1 isn't posting full games, just clips of plays. I suppose it would technically be considered copyright infringement but on such a small scale I don't think it's worth the NFL going after him.

[Steve Billieve]

1 minute ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here.  While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage.  I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights.  They go for his analysis.  

 

I have a feeling a lot of what can get a site shutdown is their use tm/ip in the advertising. Are they displaying NFL logo? team logo? When I look at cover1 i don't see any of that sort of stuff.  It looks like they go out of their way to not show it.  They also seem to alter all the images they put up on the site as well.

[GoBills808]

3 minutes ago, hondo in seattle said:

 

I see your point but there's a nuance of difference here.  While NFL content is on his site, he's charging you for his commentary on the footage.  I don't think anyone goes to Cover1 to see highlights.  They go for his analysis.  

 

Which, I have to say, is only of marginally higher usefulness than what you can find on this messageboard. He's definitely not an expert.

[Lurker]

I have no problem with the Bills/NFL stance on IP ownership because of this:  

 

 

[Don Otreply]

30 minutes ago, Phil The Thrill said:

 

So you are saying his analysis is better than former NFL players or coaches?

I did not say better, I said essentially the same. Wasn’t taking sides as it were. 

 

Go Bills !!!

[Lurker]

1 hour ago, CuddyDark said:

Color analysts do it during the game. 

 

The organizations that color analysts work for pay a rights fee to the NFL in order to do so...

[Nextmanup]

1 hour 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.

My late father was a long time newspaper man.  He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted.

 

I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country.

They will be the biggest and the best.  NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types,  and they'll be found in different regions of the country.

 

The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist.  At least not in anything close to their current form.

 

 

[Lurker]

1 minute ago, Nextmanup said:

My late father was a long time newspaper man.  He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted.

 

I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country.

They will be the biggest and the best.  NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types,  and they'll be found in different regions of the country.

 

The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist.  At least not in anything close to their current form.

 

 

 

Nonsense..  There will always be a market for local news, sports coverage and coupons.    Whether those beats will draw enough ad revenue to cover costs is the big question regional paper suffer with.

 

My father-in-law was also a life-long newspaperman and we had many, many discussions about this.   Regional newspapers will survive by dropping the national/international section, which the Buffalo News essentially already has by using Washington Post/New York Times content for 95% of that coverage.   But sections B and C (especially C, in sports towns like Buffalo) will still find an audience if done well...

[K-9]

52 minutes ago, BobChalmers said:

 

This is simply false.  He hardly just re-posts the All-22.  He goes through great detail editing it - and this is the very definition of editorial fair use.

 

Regarding editorial free use, since the All 22 is available via subscription to NFL Game Pass exclusively, is it not subject to NFL copyrights? Do providers like Cover 1 have license to redistribute that material? On the surface, I would think not but, since the NFL seems to apply their protection policies concerning the All 22 discriminately, I wonder. 

[Steve Billieve]

1 minute ago, K-9 said:

Regarding editorial free use, since the All 22 is available via subscription to NFL Game Pass exclusively, is it not subject to NFL copyrights? Do providers like Cover 1 have license to redistribute that material? On the surface, I would think not but, since the NFL seems to apply their protection policies concerning the All 22 discriminately, I wonder. 

 

If they are then using that all 22 footage for original educational or discussion use it would qualify as fair use.

[K-9]

1 hour ago, hondo in seattle said:

I see both sides of the press credential argument.

But as a fan who appreciates Erik's work, I'm disappointed he doesn't get better access. 

 

Just talking about my specific case, the more I'm into the Bills, the better it is for the team (the more gear I buy, etc.) and Erik helps me get into the team.

I tried making a similar point but was told it was nonsense. I think it stands to reason, though. 

[Steve Billieve]

Seems like NFL is sore that they avoided using team trademarks and the like so they can't just shut down the site.  So instead they try and deny them access, not that I have a problem with that necessarily.

[Chandler#81]

A repetitive word is being liberally tossed around here.

 

Nonsense.

 

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

[K-9]

21 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

The organizations that color analysts work for pay a rights fee to the NFL in order to do so...

They pay a fee for the right to broadcast only.

 

You and I are just as free to provide analysis as their color analysts are. 

22 minutes ago, Nextmanup said:

My late father was a long time newspaper man.  He and all his old buddies (most of whom are dead now) probably wouldn't believe how the world has shifted.

 

I don't know how long it's going to take, but the day will come when there are only a handful of daily newspapers left in this country.

They will be the biggest and the best.  NY Times, WSJ, Washington Post, LA Times, Chicago Tribune types,  and they'll be found in different regions of the country.

 

The little guys like the Buffalo News won't exist.  At least not in anything close to their current form.

 

 

And we will all be worse of because of it. 

[GunnerBill]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

This is my issue as well

 

The couple of breakdowns I have watched he IS WRONG on certain things

 

He isn't a real coach or scout , his opinion is far from gospel. He runs a website marketed towards rabid bills fans

 

Yea. I generally find their stuff interesting but it is a lot of opinion passed off as something more than that. I had a pretty big argument with him about the suitability of Tyrod for Rick Dennison's offense before the 2017 season where he just kept showing me videos of Quarterbacks in that offense rolling outside the pocket and completely ignored everything I said about rhythm passing. 

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, CuddyDark said:

I always thought they would get banned because they go beyond covering the players and get into scheme.

 

How you figgur that?  Use small words and speak slowly, because I don't see how "getting into scheme" per se ought to be a problem.  Lotsa NFL-sanctioned shows get into scheme - "The Wakeup Call" would be one example.

Charging a fee for the use of someone else's copyrighted material, OTOH, is an issue.

[Don Otreply]

Mostly I don’t care if an organization like cover 1 is nibbling at the edges of a massive corporate sports monopoly. More power to them I say, If not for an act of Congress the NFL would be an illegal operation.

 

Go Bills!!!

[Lurker]

5 minutes ago, Steve Billieve said:

 

If they are then using that all 22 footage for original educational or discussion use it would qualify as fair use.

 

Fair use doesn't imply unlimited usage.  

 

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

 

What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

 

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

Commentary and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

• quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
• summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
• copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
• copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. 

[K-9]

3 minutes ago, GunnerBill said:

 

Yea. I generally find their stuff interesting but it is a lot of opinion passed off as something more than that. I had a pretty big argument with him about the suitability of Tyrod for Rick Dennison's offense before the 2017 season where he just kept showing me videos of Quarterbacks in that offense rolling outside the pocket and completely ignored everything I said about rhythm passing. 

Not to digress, but one of the main reasons why TT was considered a good fit for Dennison’s offense was his having been in that system with Dennison and Kubiak in Baltimore. 

 

Unfortunately, we never got to see TT crap the bed running it in Baltimore. Doesn’t matter what kind of system TT runs, he’s too risk averse to be anything more than a mediocrity. 

[CuddyDark]

15 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

How you figgur that?  Use small words and speak slowly, because I don't see how "getting into scheme" per se ought to be a problem.  Lotsa NFL-sanctioned shows get into scheme - "The Wakeup Call" would be one example.

Charging a fee for the use of someone else's copyrighted material, OTOH, is an issue.

Last time I spoke slow and explained something to you you banned me because you disagreed so I'll pass.

Edited August 3, 2019 by CuddyDark

[Steve Billieve]

7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

Fair use doesn't imply unlimited usage.  

 

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

 

What Is Fair Use?

In its most general sense, a fair use is any copying of copyrighted material done for a limited and “transformative” purpose, such as to comment upon, criticize, or parody a copyrighted work. Such uses can be done without permission from the copyright owner. In other words, fair use is a defense against a claim of copyright infringement. If your use qualifies as a fair use, then it would not be considered an infringement.

 

Most fair use analysis falls into two categories: (1) commentary and criticism, or (2) parody.

Commentary and Criticism

If you are commenting upon or critiquing a copyrighted work—for instance, writing a book review—fair use principles allow you to reproduce some of the work to achieve your purposes. Some examples of commentary and criticism include:

• quoting a few lines from a Bob Dylan song in a music review
• summarizing and quoting from a medical article on prostate cancer in a news report
• copying a few paragraphs from a news article for use by a teacher or student in a lesson, or
• copying a portion of a Sports Illustrated magazine article for use in a related court case.

The underlying rationale of this rule is that the public reaps benefits from your review, which is enhanced by including some of the copyrighted material. 

That's exactly what cover1 is doing.  They're taking clips from all 22s and offering commentary/criticism on specifics, usually a specific topic/player/position group.  

They're not using unlimited footage of whole games while doing their own commentary.  They are addressing specific things in an educational/analytical way.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, SDS said:

Jeremy White was served with a cease and desist from the NFL for doing what Eric does. I think this was two years ago. 

How Eric has not been taken to court is beyond me. He takes NFL footage for free and tries to charge people money to view that material. 

 

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

[Lurker]

Just now, Steve Billieve said:

That's exactly what cover1 is doing.  They're taking clips from all 22s and offering commentary/criticism on specifics, usually a specific topic/player/position group.  

 

They're taking the entire 60 minute game film to distill those selected clips into something they then try to monetize and profit from (i.e., premium content).   

 

Its a grey area, for sure, but one I suspect Cover 1 would lose in a court of law if the NFL really wanted to get serious with him....

[Steve Billieve]

1 minute ago, Lurker said:

 

They're taking the entire 60 minute game film to distill those selected clips into something they then try to monetize and profit from (i.e., premium content).   

 

Its a grey area, for sure, but one I suspect Cover 1 would lose in a court of law if the NFL really wanted to get serious with him....

Reasonable minds can disagree.

[GunnerBill]

15 minutes ago, K-9 said:

Not to digress, but one of the main reasons why TT was considered a good fit for Dennison’s offense was his having been in that system with Dennison and Kubiak in Baltimore. 

 

Unfortunately, we never got to see TT crap the bed running it in Baltimore. Doesn’t matter what kind of system TT runs, he’s too risk averse to be anything more than a mediocrity. 

 

Tyrod is not very good. That is true. 

[Boca BIlls]

2 hours ago, OldTimeAFLGuy said:

...it is ALL McDermott driven......we've done construction setup/takedown work for the ST John Fisher Camp going back to 1999.....upon McDermott's arrival, we were barred from doing work on the field they were using for practice or anything adjacent until his "all clear"...OBD paid the Union rate for idle labor with no question....we annually hosted a Bills Coaching Staff/Bills Brass dinner at a local venue after camp one evening...McDermott nixed that as well......

That's fine by me.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

14 minutes ago, CuddyDark said:

Last time I spoke slow and explained something to you you banned me because you disagreed so I'll pass.

 

Considering what you said was "I can post whatever I want" ---- well, Durrr, yeah I disagreed.

So do the site guidelines.

 

Wasn't very slow and careful, though.

Going back to the point at hand, your assertion is that the Bills have declined to credential Cover1 because he gets into scheme.

But lots of credentialed media guys get into scheme.  I'll take it as you were just throwing something out there.

[Hapless Bills Fan]

1 hour ago, Buffalo716 said:

This is my issue as well

 

The couple of breakdowns I have watched he IS WRONG on certain things

 

He isn't a real coach or scout , his opinion is far from gospel. He runs a website marketed towards rabid bills fans

 

I'm interested to hear your and Gunner's take here.  I think he is often right -

 

- but sometimes he's wrong, and he's not very receptive to a different interpretation or viewpoint being pointed out, even if it can actually be seen on video

 

[wppete]

I love all the Cover1 Bills coverage. They deserve press credentials IMO. 

[K-9]

7 minutes ago, Lurker said:

 

They're taking the entire 60 minute game film to distill those selected clips into something they then try to monetize and profit from (i.e., premium content).   

 

Its a grey area, for sure, but one I suspect Cover 1 would lose in a court of law if the NFL really wanted to get serious with him....

They’re paying the subscription fee for NFL Game Pass for that 60 minute All 22 footage, and then disseminating snippets and adding commentary. Those snippets are a small, insignificant fraction of the full 60 minute offering. I’ve yet to be asked to pay Cover 1 to look at these offerings. I understand I can opt to pay for premium coverage, but I don’t, so I don’t know if Cover 1 is showing a little more, a lot more, or all of the remaining footage. I’d like to know that if anyone hear can answer that. 

 

Regarding a lawsuit, I think that would be interesting and while I think the league would prevail just based on resources alone, The NFL would have to show harm in some way. I wonder what that would look like. Lost subscribers? Ok. But what about the myriad of other outlets currently doing exactly what Cover 1 is doing? That’s a lot of people to sue. 

[GunnerBill]

11 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm interested to hear your and Gunner's take here.  I think he is often right -

 

- but sometimes he's wrong, and he's not very receptive to a different interpretation or viewpoint being pointed out, even if it can actually be seen on video

 

 

That is exactly my take Hapless. 

[Steve Billieve]

2 minutes ago, K-9 said:

They’re paying the subscription fee for NFL Game Pass for that 60 minute All 22 footage, and then disseminating snippets and adding commentary. Those snippets are a small, insignificant fraction of the full 60 minute offering. I’ve yet to be asked to pay Cover 1 to look at these offerings. I understand I can opt to pay for premium coverage, but I don’t, so I don’t know if Cover 1 is showing a little more, a lot more, or all of the remaining footage. I’d like to know that if anyone hear can answer that. 

 

Regarding a lawsuit, I think that would be interesting and while I think the league would prevail just based on resources alone, The NFL would have to show harm in some way. I wonder what that would look like. Lost subscribers? Ok. But what about the myriad of other outlets currently doing exactly what Cover 1 is doing? That’s a lot of people to sue. 

I would be shocked if they ever pursued something that didn't involve 1. raw footage or 2. trademark infringement.

All it takes is one precedent and every would-be NFL reporter would have blueprint for how to avoid IP infringement.

[K-9]

Just now, Steve Billieve said:

I would be shocked if they ever pursued something that didn't involve 1. raw footage or 2. trademark infringement.

All it takes is one precedent and every would-be NFL reporter would have blueprint for how to avoid IP infringement.

Good point. 

[Buffalo716]

20 minutes ago, Hapless Bills Fan said:

 

I'm interested to hear your and Gunner's take here.  I think he is often right -

 

- but sometimes he's wrong, and he's not very receptive to a different interpretation or viewpoint being pointed out, even if it can actually be seen on video

 

I don't think he is wrong all the time

 

But as you just said when you point out something with actual video proof he will still not back down 

 

It was either here or bbmb where he would just stop responding to me when I would ask what he is seeing that made him say something

[Lurker]

16 minutes ago, K-9 said:

They’re paying the subscription fee for NFL Game Pass for that 60 minute All 22 footage, and then disseminating snippets and adding commentary.

 

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...

[Over 29 years of fanhood]

Protect the shield ... from any possible profit leaks. 

[Fingon]

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.

[K-9]

1 hour 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...

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.