NFL messing up a good thing (Pat McAfee)

[1ManRaid]

10 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

The way McAfee was using trademarked logos to create original monetized content doesn't fall under Fair Use, and he's not a news organization. News channels have different rights under Fair Use than entertainment shows.

 

And you're right, the NFL could issue a cease and desist to any content creator using NFL logos. I received one of those letters from the Bills legal team that forced a now defunct Bills fan site to change its name and stop using the Bills logo a long time ago. 

 

Nope.  Being an "entertainment show" doesn't exclude you from Fair Use, that's not a thing.  It still qualifies as commentary, criticism, and news reporting.  It is transformative by nature, and is not acting as a substitute for the original use of the copyrighted works.  He is not claiming to represent those entities, nor is he doing things like making merchandise using those images that would replace sales from official sources.

 

His use of the material is not the basis of the content he creates as the source of his income.  The commentary and criticism is.

Edited November 1, 2022 by 1ManRaid

[Motorin']

Just now, 1ManRaid said:

 

Nope.  Being an "entertainment show" doesn't exclude you from Fair Use, that's not a thing.  It still qualifies as commentary, criticism, and news reporting.  It is transformative by nature, and is not acting as a substitute for the original use of the copyrighted works.  He is not claiming to represent those entities, nor is he doing things like making merchandise using those images that would replace sales from official sources.

 

I didn't say being an entertainment show excludes you from Fair Use. I said entertainment shows don't have the same Fair Use rights as news shows. 

 

And his content is monetized, and the more views he draws the more money he makes. So using other companies' logos to make graphics for his is show is something he has pay for. He in fact is competing against the NFL Network for views, and the more views he pulls away from the NFL Network the less money they can charge their advertisers. 

[1ManRaid]

25 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

I didn't say being an entertainment show excludes you from Fair Use. I said entertainment shows don't have the same Fair Use rights as news shows. 

 

And his content is monetized, and the more views he draws the more money he makes. So using other companies' logos to make graphics for his is show is something he has pay for. He in fact is competing against the NFL Network for views, and the more views he pulls away from the NFL Network the less money they can charge their advertisers. 

 

No, it doesn't matter.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fair Use is or what copyright law covers.  "Competing for views" is irrelevant, because his objectively unique content is not a direct replacement for whatever content the NFL is putting out.  He's not rebroadcasting the games, he's not making merchandise using the logos, nothing like that.  The images are merely being used for illustrative and commentary purposes.  Yes, he makes money making his content, but again that is irrelevant. The money he makes are from his advertising deals and other tangental agreements, not directly from his use of the logos.

 

You're arguing from the bottom of an extremely slippery slope, where you're not allowed to cover or talk about anything as long as it "competes" with the NFL in some loose tangential way.

 

EVERYONE has access to Fair Use.  It is not something unique to formal news outlets.  

Edited November 1, 2022 by 1ManRaid

[Pine Barrens Mafia]

6 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

The Pat McAfee show was notified by the NFL, that even though the show pays the NFL $4M/yr to use clips and copyright material, the show is NOT allowed to use team logos in the graphics they make.

 

SMH...

 

Pat McAfee is the best thing FOOTBALL (college and NFL) has going towards marketing their products. Of course the NFL wants to mess that up.

 

I love McAfee's response "I dont think we've touched on many subjects we could have that we now will in the offseason. Such as CTE and insurance and the NFL being held accountable for the things they should be accountable for. Guess we'll start talking a lot more about that stuff."

 

 

lol no

 

 

[Motorin']

15 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

No, it doesn't matter.  You have a fundamental misunderstanding of what Fair Use is or what copyright law covers.  "Competing for views" is irrelevant, because his objectively unique content is not a direct replacement for whatever content the NFL is putting out.  He's not rebroadcasting the games, he's not making merchandise using the logos, nothing like that.  The images are merely being used for illustrative and commentary purposes.  Yes, he makes money making his content, but again that is irrelevant. The money he makes are from his advertising deals and other tangental agreements, not directly from his use of the logos.

 

You're arguing from the bottom of an extremely slippery slope, where you're not allowed to cover or talk about anything as long as it "competes" with the NFL in some loose tangential way.

 

EVERYONE has access to Fair Use.  It is not something unique to formal news outlets.  

 

With all due respect, you are incorrect sir. 

Edited November 1, 2022 by Motorin'

[Mango]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

With all due respect, you are incorrect sir. 

 

Is this the part where you and @1ManRaid start posting links to your linkedin? 

[Motorin']

3 minutes ago, Mango said:

 

Is this the part where you and @1ManRaid start posting links to your linkedin? 

 

No, this is the part where if I'm wrong Pat McAfee gets to use NFL team logos without having to pay any fees. 

[Mr. WEO]

8 hours ago, DrDawkinstein said:

 

 

Pat McAfee is the best thing FOOTBALL (college and NFL) has going towards marketing their products. Of course the NFL wants to mess that up.

 

I love McAfee's response "I dont think we've touched on many subjects we could have that we now will in the offseason. Such as CTE and insurance and the NFL being held accountable for the things they should be accountable for. Guess we'll start talking a lot more about that stuff."

 

lol say what??

 

Anyway, The NFL isn't worried about this punter.  He's throwing down the CTE card...now?  Pretty silly.  

 

[JerseyBills]

8 hours ago, Doc said:

That show makes enough money to cover the $4 million a year?

McAfee got 100 mil deal.  Crazy I know.  Not a big fan but it's decent to watch clips

[1ManRaid]

2 hours ago, Motorin' said:

 

With all due respect, you are incorrect sir. 

 

Have you actually followed any real life copyright court cases?  Cuz I sure as hell have.  I'm really interested in knowing how you came into this belief that Fair Use only applies to "official" news outlets.

[Motorin']

7 minutes ago, 1ManRaid said:

 

Have you actually followed any real life copyright court cases?  Cuz I sure as hell have.  I'm really interested in knowing how you came into this belief that Fair Use only applies to "official" news outlets.

 

Oh boy. That's not at all what I've  said, twice now.

 

Maybe you should DM McAfee and offer to represent him in a Fair Use case against the NFL?

 

 

[hemma]

9 hours ago, Don Otreply said:

Some of the NFL owners are the owners of the gambling houses, that’s why.

 

I didn’t know that.

 

That sounds potentially sticky/borderline filthy.

[Don Otreply]

1 hour ago, hemma said:

 

I didn’t know that.

 

That sounds potentially sticky/borderline filthy.

That’s because it is as you stated,

[Captain Hindsight]

6 hours ago, C.Biscuit97 said:

To be fair, I haven’t listen to him enough but I don’t really get the PM love. He seems like kinda of a spaz and he is still a punter. I think pardon my take is far better than him. 

I think he’s just fun and a high energy guy. He has some good interviews too and a has a good perspective on the NFL. I could also see why people wouldn’t like him for his personality. 

[MaltaBillsFan]

11 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

I always love these arguments

 

Millionaires and Billionaires getting the rift raft to argue about their squabbles. 

"Riff Raff" disreputable or undesirable people.   rift raft??

[BuffaloBillsGospel2014]

I personally hope he draws the teams in every time, stick figure Nick Chubb is my favorite right now but I can't wait to see stick figure Josh Allen!

[Tanoros]

12 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Pay the fee or don’t use NFL products. That simple. Stop crying about it Simp. 

Did you miss the part about them paying $4 million to use NFL content? It sounds like they just received word it can only be game clips and not logos. It’s a little misleading by the NFL to not make that clear when someone is paying millions to use their content, like noting what can and can’t be used. 

[RocCityRoller]

19 hours ago, MAJBobby said:

Pay the fee or don’t use NFL products. That simple. Stop crying about it Simp. 

Ironic coming from a guy who has a Bills logo and an AFC Conference logo in your avatar.

Edited November 2, 2022 by RocCityRoller

[NoSaint]

54 minutes ago, Captain Hindsight said:

I think he’s just fun and a high energy guy. He has some good interviews too and a has a good perspective on the NFL. I could also see why people wouldn’t like him for his personality. 

I think he’s obnoxious as hell sometimes, but that he’s producing a more authentic insight into the nfl than most major media guys. He makes good connections with the players and gets them going in a more unfiltered manner than just about anyone else these days.

 

he’s got the authenticity of a guy that spent time in the locker room and doesn’t burn it the way most ex players do when trying to figure out the media side 

[HardyBoy]

3 minutes ago, BuffaloBillsGospel2014 said:

I personally hope he draws the teams in every time, stick figure Nick Chubb is my favorite right now but I can't wait to see stick figure Josh Allen!

It’s going to be an amazing running gag, I can’t wait!

 

My sense on the issue was the timing aspect of it and the lack of mutual respect and understanding of value PMS was providing in terms of building excitement for the NFL. My guess is this was a situation where an immediate cease and desist was sent. 
 

Also, there is a tiny part of me is wondering if this is an intentional fake thing they’re doing to drive interest. I doubt it, but PM got a big push from the Dan Lebatard Show early on and I could see that…they also were definitely not trolling their audience when he went hard after the MLB. 
 

I’m not watching PMS for the highlights or the logos, I didn’t even realize they really showed highlights and I don’t pay attention to logos (like I said, I’m super pumped for hand drawn logos though). Same with Dan Lebatard, I’m not consuming the content for the sports insight so much, as the poking fun at people who take sports way too seriously. 
 

Someone earlier used the term zeitgeist and I think that’s spot on. The NFL should tread lightly, because as much as anyone in the sports media landscape, Pat McAfee either captures or controls the zeitgeist really well.
 

Also, they did recently talk about some darker side stuff of the nfl while talking about how the Packers never used tordol while AJ Hawk was there. It was brief and they kind of talked about it discretely like it was a third rail, but they talked about it. 

 

Lastly, I’m confused by the strategy here by the NFL. As a business strategy, are they focused on maximizing revenue or growing their business. I didn’t get the sense they were in a late stage milk all contracts, minimize marketing phase, but looks like maybe I’m wrong?

 

Probably isn’t covered under fair use, because the contract for the highlights perhaps excludes that? At the same time, who cares about the contract, because you know they have these things called contract amendments that happen all the time.
 

Just an unforced error on the part of the NFL, or maybe this is part of a coordinated plan with Irsay to take the focus off the Dan Snyder stuff…

[JoPoy88]

Not gonna get into the fair use debate going on in here but my whole thing is it just seems like an odd licensing arrangement by the NFL/NFL Films. Pat has the rights to play highlights. On any given highlight the teams’ logos are splayed across all the helmets and field, and the scorebug if visible. Why he can’t use the logos to put together a static promo graphic or an intro graphic for said highlight without paying for a separate license seems incredibly dumb unless accounting for myopic greed. 

[HunTim]

No harm, no foul is the way I look at it.

Millionaires fighting over money is nothing new.

No matter who wins, it is implicit,

it's us who they screw.

 

PS: Surely, the "Fair use" clause in prevailing trademark and related intellectual property law applies?

 

 

[JoPoy88]

4 hours ago, NoSaint said:

I think he’s obnoxious as hell sometimes, but that he’s producing a more authentic insight into the nfl than most major media guys. He makes good connections with the players and gets them going in a more unfiltered manner than just about anyone else these days.

 

he’s got the authenticity of a guy that spent time in the locker room and doesn’t burn it the way most ex players do when trying to figure out the media side 

plus he talks to Aaron Rodgers on a weekly basis, and that guy doesn’t even talk to his family.

[Motorin']

11 hours ago, RocCityRoller said:

Ironic coming from a guy who has a Bills logo and an AFC Conference logo in your avatar.

 

Is it? Is he hosting a live show that charges a subscription fee and sells multi-million dollar sponsorships? And is his show able to generate millions of dollars due to the popularity of the league and brand in question? 

 

I like McAfee and his show. There's no chance he's a millionaire if his audience wasn't pulled from the audience the NFL created. 

 

He adds value, he's funny. But he's not the NFL, and so he doesn't have the right to use their trademarks in the creation of content that he charges for. Unless he pays for that right. 

 

 

 

[17islongenough]

19 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Is it? Is he hosting a live show that charges a subscription fee and sells multi-million dollar sponsorships? And is his show able to generate millions of dollars due to the popularity of the league and brand in question? 

 

I like McAfee and his show. There's no chance he's a millionaire if his audience wasn't pulled from the audience the NFL created. 

 

He adds value, he's funny. But he's not the NFL, and so he doesn't have the right to use their trademarks in the creation of content that he charges for. Unless he pays for that right. 

 

 

 

You can watch his show for free. Not sure why someone is paying for it.  He also pays the NFL 4 million a year

[Bleeding Bills Blue]

35 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

 

Is it? Is he hosting a live show that charges a subscription fee and sells multi-million dollar sponsorships? And is his show able to generate millions of dollars due to the popularity of the league and brand in question? 

 

I like McAfee and his show. There's no chance he's a millionaire if his audience wasn't pulled from the audience the NFL created. 

 

He adds value, he's funny. But he's not the NFL, and so he doesn't have the right to use their trademarks in the creation of content that he charges for. Unless he pays for that right. 

 

 

 

 

He got a lot of listeners from the barstool job he took after he left the NFL.  One of the reasons he left was basically stuff like this - he was paid a salary but he didn't know the goings-on outside of his podcasts, blogs, etc.  He was talent, not a business partner.  

 

He's not just NFL either, he has wrestled at multiple WWE events, and was the color announcer on smackdown for like a year.  He works for ESPN on College Gameday every Saturday, and does a ton of other ESPN stuff related to both college and pro football.  

 

Sending a Cease and Desist letter to an ESPN employee is just so strange and petty to me.  I know the reasoning is likely NFL+ related and there will be EXCLUSIVE podcasts that will be able to air whatever they want.  

14 minutes ago, 17islongenough said:

You can watch his show for free. Not sure why someone is paying for it.  He also pays the NFL 4 million a year

 

It's a podcast, they're all free - they just do mid-show ads for things like fanduel and stuff. 

 

He's basically made his own barstool sports - but without the controversy that accompanies working with Dave Portnoy.  

Edited November 2, 2022 by Bleeding Bills Blue

[Punching Bag]

31 minutes ago, Bleeding Bills Blue said:

Sending a Cease and Desist letter to an ESPN employee is just so strange and petty to me.  I know the reasoning is likely NFL+ related and there will be EXCLUSIVE podcasts that will be able to air whatever they want.  

 

This reasoning makes most sense for this organization.

[RocCityRoller]

1 hour ago, Motorin' said:

 

Is it? Is he hosting a live show that charges a subscription fee and sells multi-million dollar sponsorships? And is his show able to generate millions of dollars due to the popularity of the league and brand in question? 

 

I like McAfee and his show. There's no chance he's a millionaire if his audience wasn't pulled from the audience the NFL created. 

 

He adds value, he's funny. But he's not the NFL, and so he doesn't have the right to use their trademarks in the creation of content that he charges for. Unless he pays for that right.

Tell me you didn't listen to the clip without telling me you didn't listen to the clip.

 

He pays the NFL $4million a year in licensing fees.

 

Not sure who is paying a subscription for his Podcast, it is free to me, as are most of the video clips on youtube.

[The Wiz]

So the thing that sticks out most to me with all of this, is the NFL specifically targeting their show?  Why are other companies (ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc) allowed to use NFL team logos when doing the news?  Do they have a different contract with these news outlets than they do with McAfee?

 

And I'm not specifically talking about their broadcasting contract.  I'm referring to the shows that they have either leading up to the broadcasts.  Are those shows actually NFL "owned" shows or do they belong to the broadcast company?

Edited November 2, 2022 by The Wiz

[Motorin']

15 minutes ago, RocCityRoller said:

Tell me you didn't listen to the clip without telling me you didn't listen to the clip.

 

He pays the NFL $4million a year in licensing fees.

 

Not sure who is paying a subscription for his Podcast, it is free to me, as are most of the video clips on youtube.

 

Tell me you've never made a licensing deal without telling me you've never made a licensing deal. 

 

He pays for video footage, and explained on his show that he can't even pause it, because then it becomes a graphic. And his deal currently does not include the licensing of graphics.

 

 

 

 

[Process]

Incredible 🤣

[Bferra13]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:36 PM, NoSaint said:

I think he’s obnoxious as hell sometimes, but that he’s producing a more authentic insight into the nfl than most major media guys. He makes good connections with the players and gets them going in a more unfiltered manner than just about anyone else these days.

 

he’s got the authenticity of a guy that spent time in the locker room and doesn’t burn it the way most ex players do when trying to figure out the media side 

Agreed on the obnoxious thing. He's alright. Kind of a dbag though at the same time.

[BillsShredder83]

On 11/1/2022 at 10:13 AM, DrDawkinstein said:

 

We get the "black & white", you signed a contract, point of this. I'm not going to argue with you on that. We all get that. It's the most basic way of looking at this.

 

The point of discussion is that the Trillion Dollar NFL is once again shooting itself in the foot for something they could easily smooth over at no cost of their own, and even garner more good will. It's marketing and advertising. They pay a ton for it anyways. It's a short-sighted, greedy move.

 

Sure, they have "the right" to do it, but that doesnt make it "right".

 

But I look forward to the upcoming "NFL Dirt" segments and discussions that will be coming.

They poked a bear in a guy that has more media ability to come up with dirt than anyone else. Players love Pat, he's a fun interview, everyone let's their hair down a bit.

 

If you're an nfl player and have a gripe he's the first person I'd think of to go to. Huge outreach, trustworthy, and a guy that knows the business from the inside.

 

Only thing potentially keeping pat from going nuclear (if wanted) is being nervous at losing the permissions he already has.

 

Both sides are motivated to figure this out, so that's what I expect to happen. But what an absolute crap look, yet again, from the nfl.

[BillsShredder83]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:09 AM, Beck Water said:

 

I think he did, you don't seem able to decode his answer.  HIs answer was that allowing people to use IP without additional charge if they generate effective free advertising for you isn't "giving away IP" and may in fact be an effective means to maximize revenue.

Not to mention it directly lines the pockets of a HUGE (possibly largest, unsure, but if it's not, they will be in time) sponsor of the nfls.

 

The biggest promoter of the nfls largest sponsor, seems very stupid to alienate Pat and Fanduel for money that won't move their needle.

[DrDawkinstein]

On 11/2/2022 at 11:53 AM, The Wiz said:

So the thing that sticks out most to me with all of this, is the NFL specifically targeting their show?  Why are other companies (ESPN, FOX, CBS, etc) allowed to use NFL team logos when doing the news?  Do they have a different contract with these news outlets than they do with McAfee?

 

And I'm not specifically talking about their broadcasting contract.  I'm referring to the shows that they have either leading up to the broadcasts.  Are those shows actually NFL "owned" shows or do they belong to the broadcast company?

 

Yes, most likely they have specific verbiage that allows them to make and use such graphics. Each contract is different. And the main broadcasters most likely have different contracts and bigger legal teams, than McAfee's organically grown podcast. Those broadcasters are all paying WAY more than $4M/yr.

 

Wouldnt be surprised if McAfee's podcast was originally just looking to be able to show clips, so what they are allowed to do is slimmed down considerably from what the actual broadcasters and TV channels can do.

[BillsShredder83]

On 11/1/2022 at 12:13 PM, Limeaid said:

 

Not only players but coaches and front office of Bills.  I wonder how long before NFL tells coaches and front office personnel they cannot appear without additional license payment to NFL?

 

The Bills monetized Bills Mafia reducing support of Bills Backers groups who have supported them for 30+ years (we got a Bills Mafia flag this year rather the box of items they used to send) and NFL is being same way monetized whatever they can and dissing those who supported them.

Actually thinking of stepping down from Backers Group due to attitude change of teams and NFL.

 

Wow I didn't realize these were affiliated with teams directly. Do the teams take cuts on this to "promote" them, which is realistically probably only listing places on their team websites.

[BillsShredder83]

On 11/1/2022 at 12:45 PM, MJS said:

Honestly, I do not see what anyone likes about Pat McAfee and his show. It is wildly popular. I just find him and the others on the show pompous and annoying.

It's quite the opposite imo. He's super relatable, comes across as a common fan who happens to get awesome guests.

 

It's basically the only place you'll see players/coaches/gm's/reporters giving non coach speak answers.

 

The interviews are electric, Beane has been amazing on it several times. I get he probably jokes around too much for certain demographics, but his candor and that of guests makes it the best NFL show period

[BillsShredder83]

On 11/1/2022 at 3:00 PM, C.Biscuit97 said:

To be fair, I haven’t listen to him enough but I don’t really get the PM love. He seems like kinda of a spaz and he is still a punter. I think pardon my take is far better than him. 

I think they're different products. Love both, but when I want info on a big story I'm going to McAfee. When there's nothing Noteworthy going on PMT is a comedy podcast that talks about NFL.

 

So if ESPN is far left, PMT is far right, and Pat rides the middle. I dunno what my point is other than it's a bit apple and oranges, to me anyways

On 11/1/2022 at 6:59 PM, hemma said:

 

I didn’t know that.

 

That sounds potentially sticky/borderline filthy.

Kraft is in bed with Schefter on a gambling venture

[Mango]

On 11/1/2022 at 11:59 PM, JoPoy88 said:

Not gonna get into the fair use debate going on in here but my whole thing is it just seems like an odd licensing arrangement by the NFL/NFL Films. Pat has the rights to play highlights. On any given highlight the teams’ logos are splayed across all the helmets and field, and the scorebug if visible. Why he can’t use the logos to put together a static promo graphic or an intro graphic for said highlight without paying for a separate license seems incredibly dumb unless accounting for myopic greed. 

Not to mention that this is coming in week 8 or 9 and the guy has been running his show for how long? 
 

Feels like a money grab for the league. 

[The Dean]

Anyone who honestly believes McAfee is VITAL to NFL marketing needs to think again. McAfee would be just a rand9m ranting mook without the NFL. The NFL is VITAL to McAfee's popularity. IMO he should be paying the NFL big rights fees, because without the league he's a NOBODY and would be worth a tiny fraction of what he is currently worth.  The NFL is wildly popular and would be so if McAfee had never been born.

 

With that said,  how big of an impact does the lack of logos have on McAfee's podcast? Is that really some soft of insurmountable obstacle?