This space intentionally left blank
Earlier this year, I wrote a couple posts about the Sounders. Since then I’ve been thinking about the M’s, Sounders, Seahawks, sports in Seattle generally, and today, with the M’s and Sounders lined up (and me with a last-minute windfall ticket to the Sounders-Fire game), I was going to start putting it all together along with a nice recommendation of the Sounders.
On my ticket, though, there’s this:
The ticket holder will not transmit or aid in transmitting any picture, account or description (whether text, data or visual) in any media now or hereafter existing of all or any part of the Events.
So I’m not supposed to tell you anything, much less throw a picture up (and if anyone took a photo of themselves having a good time, or updated their Facebook status, well, woe to you).
And it’s not that I can’t do it anyway, and tell them to shove off. It’s that now, as petulant as I’m sure this seems, I don’t want to. What a venomous little provision.
Comments
58 Responses to “This space intentionally left blank”
Leave a Reply
You must be logged in to post a comment.
Because god forbid you should tell friends how much fun you had, and encourage them to attend a future game.
How does anyone expect them to enforce this? Seriously.
I thought for a second the headline was a joking reference to the last to box scores put up by our beloved team.
thought for a second the headline was a joking reference to the last to box scores put up by our beloved team.
Obviously meant “two”.
Hmmmmm………
I think admitting you went to the match might even be a violation of this policy……
DMZ,speaking of Seattle Sports, you should check out some Rat City Roller Derby on 8/15 at the Showare–they’re playing the Windy City Rollers–one of the top ranked teams in derby–a far more exciting sport than soccer imo.
The first rule of fight club….
I assumed it was roster spots of players soon to be dealt, then to be filled in with exciting names by Zduriencik.
It’s a bit like those stupid “Do not photograph” signs that originally were put around some of the pieces in the Olympic Sculpture Park. Immediately Flickr was full of carefully-composed pictures of both the pieces and the accompanying sign. The signs seem to be gone now, presumably sent to the same place as “5 cent beer” and “replica bat” baseball promotions.
Actually, I’ve been thinking that corporate boundaries were getting in the way of some fun marketing opportunities. I think that they could have some soccer-baseball doubleheaders and sell more tickets. Of course, the Sounders are selling out only because they block off half the stadium, but I think they could sell tickets and both build support if they thought of how to work together. Some people might be more willing to deal with the parking and travel hassles if they got more entertainment out of it.
Maybe they are trying to reverse psychologize you. Nobody much talks about soccer here in the U.S., so if they tell you not to talk about it, then maybe you will out of spite. A bit like the previous comment’s example of them telling people not to photoshop the olympic sculpture park and then immediately everybody did it.
NFL: “This telecast is copyrighted by the NFL for the private use of our audience. Any other use of this telecast or any pictures, descriptions, or accounts of the game without the NFL’s consent is prohibited”
MLB: “This copyrighted telecast is presented by authority of the Office of the Commissioner of Baseball. It may not be reproduced or retransmitted in any form, and the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent”
I wouldn’t blame MLS for doing this any more than MLB and NFL. Also, I am not a lawyer, but it is most likely that such provisions are not enforceable. Copyright protects “expressions” not ideas/facts. Basically, I can tell you that Romeo and Juliet die, I can tell you how they die, but I can’t tell you in Shakespeare’s words (if his work was copyrighted, which it isn’t). Therefore, it’s pretty clear that I can’t copy a recording of the game (absent a fair use exception) or copy someone else’s description (absent a fair use exception) but I cannot see any way for them to copyright the fact that Manny hit a pinch-hit grand slam because that is a fact, not an expression.
This distinction became problematic for news services. In international news service v. associated press, the INS was using AP’s news. AP claimed copyright protection but couldn’t win on that. They ended up winning on an “unfair competition” claim.
Hey, the RCRG sisters rock! They kicked the crap out of the Carolina Rollergirls last week at the Key.
That’s not a bad idea. I doubt “corporate boundaries” have blocked it… yet. The Sounders just started this year, before the wider world understood how supportive the fans would be, and schedules for both teams were set long ago specificially to try to keep home games from colliding. It’s something you should suggest to the Sounders (I’m sure the Sounders would be far more receptive to the idea than the M’s would be, and the M’s in turn would be more receptive to an approach from the Sounders than from some random fan). I’ll bet a lot of people will question the overlap between the two fanbases, but those same people probably didn’t think there was much of a Seattle fanbase for soccer, period. It would be really cool if they could do it on a weekend when both teams are hosting teams from the same city (Jays/Toronto FC, Royals/Wizards, Rangers/Dallas FC, etc — I’ll bet you’d get a fair number of fans coming down from Vancouver and Victoria for the first of those if they promoted it a bit).
This goes beyond that. The MLB disclaimer means you can’t retransmit the video of the game, or use the announcer’s call of the game, without prior permission.
The wording on the Sounders tickets means you can’t use your own photos of the game, or your own description. It’s like DRM for…for what? Your ability to communicate your own personal experience? So it’s like DRM for your life.
I can see it now — with your restaurant bill: “All accounts or descriptions of the meal just consumed, be they audio, visual or text, including photographs, video or audio recordings, oral descriptions, and formulated thoughts are the property of MegaRestaurantCorp, and retransmission in any way is expressly prohibited.”
You can only text message a friend the score if you are watching the game on TV; if you are there live and text message the score you will be prosecuted to the fullest extent of the law.
It also came up when MLB tried to “own” its box scores to get a pound of flesh from fantasy baseball operators. And the courts struck them down (if not for that, making sites like Fangraphs possible, USSM would just be a bunch of people arguing about “chemistry” and “momentum.”)
C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, No. 4:05-CV-00252 (pdf)
I hear the Seattle based soccer team tied today.
Let go of the ticket. Therefore you are not a ticket holder. You can take photos in public place. Dave is the professional photographer but I have no doubt that you have the right to take photos. It still stinks to see that on a ticket. Hello transparency. Wait that was a poltical promise and they don’t count.
The MLB language came about because back in the day there was a healthy business in “recreated” radio game broadcasts, whereby a radio announcer in Tulsa (or wherever) would “call” a ballgame by watching the batter-by-batter results come in off of the wire and BS-ing in some color.
That said, even by that standard the Sounders thing is nuts.
but I have no doubt that you have the right to take photos
Not necessarily. A private venue can ban photography, and kick you out for taking pictures if they choose. Public funding for a stadium might give some leeway, but I think (in the end) it would end up being like the items you’re not allowed to take into the stadium, despite said items not being illegal to carry. Team owners would have to be really, really, really stupid to try to actually prevent photography, however.
Also, there has been some success in limiting the use of photographs of “recognizable buildings” for commercial use (I believe it’s hit and miss). Depending upon what you did with said photographs they might have an avenue to sue.
Chances are, there are a few people sending real time pictures from the game via their phones. Chances are the Sounders encourage this the same way the Mariners do. Chances are this won’t help the Sounders if they try to enforce the literal meaning of the words on the ticket.
I’m guessing then that Sounders officials haven’t been on Flickr, Photobucket and other sites because there are tens of thousands of fan photos from their matches posted on there.
Though, granted, I’ve never seen any pictures other than shots of the crowd, fan pics with friends and idle far-away shots of players standing around, so maybe those don’t count. Who knows. Maybe it’s just a policy they put down in case they want to go after some journalist, blogger or even individual posting pics for some reason.
Not to take this off into moderation land, but…
[welcome to moderation land]
Yeah, let’s not go down that road.
Maybe it’s just a policy they put down in case they want to go after some journalist, blogger or even individual posting pics for some reason.
I think you hit the nail on the head. There’s no reason not to cram a bunch of stupid restrictions on the back of the ticket or in a EULA that might be useful in the future (because 99.9% of the people won’t read or understand it).
The worst thing that can happen is that you try to defend it, and it gets thrown out of court. Odds are that paying for a lawyer to defend it to that point won’t be worth it, and you’ll be able to shut down “Paul’s Sounders Recap” with just a letter.
When IP wonks combine with marketing, bad things happen. Like when the NFL stopped the atrocity of Las Vegas houses promoting the Super Bowl with *gasp* “Super Bowl Parties”. Fortunately, order has been restored, and there are no longer Super Bowl Parties in Las Vegas. Only “Big Football Game” parties.
At least there, I suppose, the wonk could argue he was only protecting the mark. I think the Sounders wonk just heard the copyright notice on TV and thought it was cool.
Because analytically, it is moronic.
People who deal with IP have a tendency to live in a world where they want the law to overcome the limitations of the very technology that is the secret to their success. The ability of current digital technology to make perfect copies has destroyed the record industry, turned most of a generation of college students into technical scofflaws, and put some grandmothers in jail.
Really, as if a 0-0 tie counts as something actually happening.
This is literally the most blog friendly sport in America right now, providing regular access to players, coaches, training and matches for blogs.
In fact the league encourages the use of official logos on blogs covering the league and its teams.
I doubt that the warning has EVER been applied in this league.
US Soccer has even allowed blogs with tiny readership numbers access to US National Team practice.
Basically, what you’ve done is overreact to legalese without researching the league’s online practices.
The issue here is not whether they provide access to blogs. Or that it’s applied. It’s that my ticket contains very specific language that says I can’t so much as talk about the match, ever.
And I don’t understand why it’s wrong to point this stuff out, or to be annoyed about it — and why that’s an overreaction. That it’s legalese doesn’t mean that it’s any less odious. At some point, there was a set of deliberate decisions and reviews that led to those words appearing on every ticket every fan holds. It’s not an accident.
Certainly it isn’t an accident, but by the very ticket and copyright statements that MLS makes this blog can not exist (at least to ever discuss on event that happened during a big league game).
In fact by the statements for the other leagues quoted above, water cooler talk is a violation as well.
So why the comment on MLS, and not on MLB, NFL, NBA, NHL, etc?
Correction to above MLS=MLB
I’m tempted to call up a sports-talk show.
“Ed in Ballard, you’re on Sports Talk Radio.”
“Hey, love the show, first-time caller. I wanted to talk about the Sounders!…but I was at the game, so I’m not allowed to. I’ll take your answer off the air.”
Okay, so ignoring for a second the switch to equivalency: MLB says you can’t rebroadcast or retransmit game broadcasts, including accounts, which is fine, it’s copyright them & their broadcast partners. It’s somewhat of an overreach in that what they’re actually asserting is (as above) that I can’t do my own broadcasts/pretend I’m broadcasting, while I have the fair use right to talk about how horrible Rick Rizzs is.
Also, I have commented on this.
The Sounders ticket says I can’t go home and tell Mrs. Zumsteg what happened at the game I went to — and not just what happened on-field, but what it was like to attend, all the other stuff that goes with “Event”. I can’t tell, in any form, anyone anything, if I obey the terms. And I think that sucks. I really wanted to talk about the difference in two games taking place across the street, and why I thought the Sounders game was… technically, even an adjective qualifies as description, so I should stop there. Though I will say it would have been a pretty ringing endorsement.
The M’s tickets say “The Holder agrees that (a) he or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or any other information concerning the game (“Game Information”).” I suppose my comment on yesterday’s game, from having had a ticket to the game, would be in violation. The M’s, though, definitely ask people to take pictures at the game, and even send them to the M’s for use on the DiamondVision during the game. No way in hell they can enforce that language literally.
The difference there being MLB isn’t asserting the right to control what you do after the game: that clause is applicable during the use of the ticket (in fact, I just looked up examples of the fine print, and the boilerplate starting that whole clause is “In using the ticket….”)
Derek, your baseball tickets say the same exact thing, and it’s exactly as enforceable (i.e., not at all).
In fact, my Sounders ticket from today says “If a legal baseball game is not played, ticket may be exchanged for a same priced seat for any other regular same season game if available.” No, “baseball” is not a typo. It’s on the ticket blank.
As for photography, Qwest (who provide security and thus set the actual rules in force) say cameras with detachable lenses longer than 6″ are prohibited, all others are allowed, so your Canon or Nikon DSLR with the 55-200mm is probably OK. As always, the real rules are set by the mouthbreathers who check your bags at the checkin gates — just like at the airport.
My ticket does not say that. I don’t think we have the same tickets. Also, lack of enforceability doesn’t make it okay.
I have, btw, sent them an email asking what the deal is. I’m curious what they’ll say.
I will also make this promise: if the next time I go an M’s game my ticket has equivalent-or-worse T&Cs, I will pitch an equivalent-or-greater post, made all the worse for not having seen them creeping up on me earlier.
I have never read my Sounders tickets.
Oops.
People comment during the games. On this very blog.
The first rule of Sounders Soccer is: you do not talk about Sounders Soccer. The second rule of Sounders Soccer is: you DO NOT talk about Sounders Soccer!
Not a great way to grow membership for an area sports team.
If I’m allowed to say this, I actually thought it was a decent game despite the scoreline. Two red cards, shots off the woodwork, etc. Pretty frustrating that the Sounders didn’t win though as they deserved it on the balance of play.
Derek, seriously. There are a couple concepts in law that you should know. One is “enforcement” and the other is “remedy”.
Do you really think the Sounders give a **** if you post an account on this blog? I.e. would they really trouble themselves to enforce?
Secondly, what exactly do you think the remedy would be? Do you really think a judge, assuming the Sounders would litigate, would even trouble herself to figure out what the remedy would be? Such a suit would be thrown out immediately.
This is a blog, get over yourself.
Personally, I think this is a brilliant provision. I prefer to live in a world where people do not talk about Seattle soccer, or for that matter, soccer of any kind.
I think Derek is absolutely right: The wording says that you as a paying customer can’t even talk to your wife about the game you went to. I think that sucks to treat your customers this way. And I think you can’t simply dismiss this as not to be taken seriously or unenforceable: The sounders state clearly that they consider themselves entitled to prohibit this. If they did not mean it, why print it on the ticket?
The mlb wording “…the accounts and descriptions of this game may not be disseminated without express written consent” seems to aim at the same thing (not sure what “disseminated” mean, technically, but it might include the content of blogs.)
Whether this is enforceable or not and what the remedy would be is besides the point I think: These statements express an entitlement to complete control of what’s being communicated about the events and I think that’s not ok.
So the problem here is that I… what? Take this, or myself too seriously?
And again — I’m not arguing that it’s enforceable. I’m saying it’s disappointing they even assert this control.
The M’s have the exact same text on their season tickets. But when I’ve heard people ask an usher if you can bring in a camera the answer has been “yes, as long as it’s not a professional telephoto setup.”
I think the Sounders more than a lot of sports teams give their fans a ton of leeway (try standing with your friends and singing, “LET HIM DIE, LET HIM DIE” when an opposing player gets HBP at Safeco and see how fast the usher comes down with a “red card” – hell, try standing and singing anything, any time).
So I don’t think I’d single them out over this obvious boilerplate (the issue may be the word “transmit“).
It’s just fantastic how professional sports organizations aggressively promote the idea of fandom “for the love of the game” while simultaneously doing everything they can think of to make sure they control any potential monetization of that passion.
I agree with Derek 100% (though he may not agree with me). It’s an incredibly ignorant business position for the Sounders to take as well.
I don’t think Derek’s stance is petulant (his word) in the least. It’s principled, and I wish every Sounder fan in the city would take a similar approach.
question?
Why are the Sounders to blame for their ticket policy, but MLB is credited with the one the Mariners have?
and both have the similar legal wording
the issue may be the word “transmit“.
Good catch! That probably does not include blogs or talking. It would include unaccredited radio journalists who visited the game, though. Or someone calling in on the radio talk show.
The soccer haters are hilarious here. 30k fans ev every game is a pretty amazing number to ignore. Someone must be talking about soccer around here. As a fan of both teams and supporter, its great to see the M’s be competitive. In some way, the succes of the Sounders may have pepped the M’s to catch the winning fever, so as they arent a losing product next to the successfult Sounders. Earlier in the year, at the first M’s/Sounders doubleheader, a bunch of us from supporter groups Gorilla FC and NES went to the M’s game to cheer on the Mariners. It was a blast, and the M’s beat the Rangers!
The back of my season ticket to tomorrow night’s M’s game says “The holder agrees that (a) he or she shall not transmit or aid in transmitting any account, description, picture, video, audio, reproduction or other information concerning the game.”
Enforceability aside, there is a very strong legal argument that the M’s langauge is actually more expansive than the Sounder’s as it includes a catchall for “other information concerning the game” that the M’s doesn’t.
And the Sounders also actively encourage blogs and descriptions of the games.
Last line of the second paragraph should be “that the Sounder’s doesn’t.”
In re-reading these posts, I am amazed that only one other person bothered to read the back of an M’s ticket before piling on the Sounders and suggesting that the franchise lacks business savy because of the boilerplate on the back of the ticket.
Since I don’t have a Sounders ticket in my possession, I can not see if they have equivalent language but this is the scary part to me…
(c)The Club and Major League Baseball shall have unrestricted right to use his or her identity, likeness and/or voice in any audio, video, or photographic recording of the game and associated promotional activities.
They can turn you into a freaking cartoon character pimping the game. All those rally fry fanatics better be careful…
I’m not sure about that … the overlap question could I think go either way. The soccer fanbase question was answered over 30 years ago, when the Sounders drew crowds of over 40,000 in the Kingdome.