Fantasy Leagues get a boost from legal ruling

[Reality]

Normally, this would be posted in the Fantasy Zone especially since the ruling was regarding Major League Baseball. However, this was a legal win for the fans and should apply toward other leagues such as fantasy football so I felt it was newsworthy enough to be posted in The Zone for a short time.

Judge rules statistics not intellectual property of MLB
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2006/baseball/mlb/08/08/fantasy.baseball.lawsuit.ap/index.html?cnn=yes

ST. LOUIS (AP) -- Fantasy baseball leagues are allowed to use player names and statistics without licensing agreements because they are not the intellectual property of Major League Baseball, a federal judge ruled Tuesday.

Baseball and its players have no right to prevent the use of names and playing records, U.S. District Court Judge Mary Ann Medler in St. Louis ruled in a 49-page summary judgment.

St. Louis-based CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. filed a lawsuit against Major League Baseball Advanced Media, MLB's Internet wing, after CBC was denied a new licensing agreement with the baseball players' association giving it the rights to player profiles and statistics.

Major League Baseball claimed that intellectual property laws and so-called "right of publicity" make it illegal for fantasy leagues to make money off the identities and stats of professional players.

But even if the players could claim the right of publicity against commercial ventures by others, Medler wrote, the First Amendment takes precedent because CBC, which runs CDM Fantasy Sports, is disseminating the same statistical information found in newspapers every day.

"The names and playing records of major league baseball players as used in CBC's fantasy games are not copyrightable," Medler wrote. "Therefore, federal copyright law does not pre-empt the players' claimed right of publicity."

The ruling brings some relief to more than 300 businesses that run online fantasy leagues and have awaited the outcome of the lawsuit. In fantasy sports leagues, fans draft major leaguers and teams win or lose based on the statistical success of the actual players in major league games.

It wasn't immediately clear what impact the ruling would have on existing agreements, such as the ones MLB has with CBS Sportsline.com, Yahoo Inc., ESPN.com and others. MLB also may appeal.

"My thought today is this ruling is pretty strong but if MLB wants to fight it they have the funds to do it," said Jeff Thomas, founder and CEO of the fantasy site SportsBuff.com and president of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.

Thomas said SportsBuff.com's online fantasy baseball leagues have tried for years to reach agreements with MLB, but were unsuccessful and carried on without them.

Major League Baseball Advanced Media had just received the ruling this afternoon and was in the process of reviewing it, said spokesman Jim Gallagher.

"We need to talk to our partners, the Major League Baseball Players Associations, before we have anything more to say," he said.

Baseball's refusal to give CBC a contract for the 2005 season came as the league was making exclusive statistics licensing agreements in the fantasy sports marketplace that has grown to more than 15 million players.

Like many other fantasy baseball leagues, CBC had a licensing agreement with the MLBPA from 1995 through the 2004 season and paid 9 percent of gross royalties to the association. The company now believes it shouldn't have to pay for the right to use statistics.

Rudy Telscher, who represents CBC, said both sides had asked for a summary judgment before the case was scheduled to go to trial next month.

"Once you've won this here the odds are really good for us when MLB appeals," Telscher said. "I think once this issue is decided by an appellate court it's unlikely that other sports will try to take this to the court again."

Fantasy sports has grown at a rate of up to 10 percent each year, according to the Fantasy Sports Trade Association.

MLB had 19 license agreements in 2004, according to MLB Advanced Media, and just seven last season after a $50 million agreement with the players association giving baseball exclusive rights to license statistics.

Many of the smaller fantasy businesses, such as CBC, say they were cut out of the agreement.

Glenn Colton, a New York lawyer who wrote a friend of the court brief for the Fantasy Sports Trade Association, said the statistics licensing issue is critical to the industry.

"The idea on MLB's part is if you can scare all of the little companies out of the market," Colton said, "you can collect more money."

-Reality

 

[Crown Royal]

It would seem to me that this should expand to video games, no?

(ESPN Resurgance?)

 

[theogt]

It would seem to me that this should expand to video games, no?

(ESPN Resurgance?)

That would go under the category of "depends".

 

[AtlCB]

more negative press for MLB

These idiots wonder why their league has fallen so far behind the NFL.

 

[Crown Royal]

That would go under the category of "depends".

Actually I thought about it more. Number one, I think they get license from the NFLPA as far as names go.

Further, they may not have the name issue, but they durn sure have to get licensing from the NFL to gain rights to team names/icons/etc.

IOW - My original post is null and void.

 

[TheHustler]

Wow.

What is MLB thinking? Remove something that causes fans to have interest in more games than they normally would.

Yeah, that's a good idea.

 

[ajk23az]

i know i wouldnt be that much of a baseball fan if it wasnt for fantasy baseball, i ALMOST like fantasy baseball more than fball bc of all the number crunching...

 

[Reality]

Actually I thought about it more. Number one, I think they get license from the NFLPA as far as names go.

Further, they may not have the name issue, but they durn sure have to get licensing from the NFL to gain rights to team names/icons/etc.

IOW - My original post is null and void.

Fantasy Leagues do not need to use team names, icons, etc. to function. They need player names and stats to function. That's what makes this ruling so important.

-Reality

 

[theogt]

Fantasy Leagues do not need to use team names, icons, etc. to function. They need player names and stats to function. That's what makes this ruling so important.

-Reality

It's really not that groundbreaking of a decision. The MLB for whatever reason thought that facts (which is all statistics are) were copyrightable. They never have and never will be.

 

[Reality]

It's really not that groundbreaking of a decision. The MLB for whatever reason thought that facts (which is all statistics are) were copyrightable. They never have and never will be.

Actually, it is a major groundbreaking decision. MLB was going after sites using their stats in the past with C&D orders and threats of lawsuits and now one company stood up and said no.

I do not play fantasy league sports but I hate when companies try to copyright everything on the internet. It's one thing to copyright logos, news articles, etc. but stats are just beyond the line of common sense. Without companies like this that stand up to the big money corporations, we could easily find see our choices of quality web sites, fantasy leagues, etc. shrink to very limited options.

I know MLB will appeal this ruling but it won't matter. The ruling was very logical but the difference is now precedent has been set by the courts.

-Reality

 

[theogt]

Actually, it is a major groundbreaking decision. MLB was going after sites using their stats in the past with C&D orders and threats of lawsuits and now one company stood up and said no.

I do not play fantasy league sports but I hate when companies try to copyright everything on the internet. It's one thing to copyright logos, news articles, etc. but stats are just beyond the line of common sense. Without companies like this that stand up to the big money corporations, we could easily find see our choices of quality web sites, fantasy leagues, etc. shrink to very limited options.

I know MLB will appeal this ruling but it won't matter. The ruling was very logical but the difference is now precedent has been set by the courts.

-Reality

It's not groundbreaking at all. People could see this coming from a mile away. They can appeal, yes, but the district court isn't precedent to the appellate court. Any law student that's taken an IP survey course can tell you the MLB didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It was only a matter of time.

 

[Reality]

It's not groundbreaking at all. People could see this coming from a mile away. They can appeal, yes, but the district court isn't precedent to the appellate court. Any law student that's taken an IP survey course can tell you the MLB didn't have a snowball's chance in hell. It was only a matter of time.

People can see a lot of things coming from a mile away but until someone stands up, pays the legal bills and wins a judgement in court, it doesn't matter. A groundbreaking decision is not one that is "logical" or "anti-logical" .. it is one that affects a lot of people or organizations where no previous precedent has been set but now is as a result of the ruling.

This ruling was huge because it can be applied to all kinds of things beyond fantasy leagues. For example, let's say you created a web site with player stats on it and MLB came after you and said, "Remove it or we will sue you." What do you do? You may "believe" you are right and that they have no case, but it will take a LOT of money to cover legal bills in order to prove that in court. This company just made it possible for you (or whoever) to never have to fight that fight.

As a said, very groundbreaking .. common sense or not .. logical or not .. it's now precedent ..

-Reality

 

[DBoys]

People can see a lot of things coming from a mile away but until someone stands up, pays the legal bills and wins a judgement in court, it doesn't matter. A groundbreaking decision is not one that is "logical" or "anti-logical" .. it is one that affects a lot of people or organizations where no previous precedent has been set but now is as a result of the ruling.

This ruling was huge because it can be applied to all kinds of things beyond fantasy leagues. For example, let's say you created a web site with player stats on it and MLB came after you and said, "Remove it or we will sue you." What do you do? You may "believe" you are right and that they have no case, but it will take a LOT of money to cover legal bills in order to prove that in court. This company just made it possible for you (or whoever) to never have to fight that fight.

As a said, very groundbreaking .. common sense or not .. logical or not .. it's now precedent ..

-Reality

Very true...

What I find funny is how MLB will fight something that would help the image of their game yet ignore the dopers who should be banned from baseball. How they can ban Rose for betting as a coach (which should have nothing to do with his playing days) yet ignore dopers breaking sacred records is beyond me.

Didn't mean to get off course I am very bitter at MLB and sadly the game is dead to me.

This ruling is very good news

 

[masomenos]

Number one, I think they get license from the NFLPA as far as names go.
This is true, but I believe this ruling would strip the NFLPA of the power to control players names. The companies wouldn't have to go throught the NFLPA to get the names.

Further, they may not have the name issue, but they durn sure have to get licensing from the NFL to gain rights to team names/icons/etc.
This is still true, sure, but personally I'd be fine playing as the Dallas Stars or the Houston Longhorns or the Tampa Bay Pirates if it meant I could play a superior game that still had real players.

 

[theogt]

People can see a lot of things coming from a mile away but until someone stands up, pays the legal bills and wins a judgement in court, it doesn't matter. A groundbreaking decision is not one that is "logical" or "anti-logical" .. it is one that affects a lot of people or organizations where no previous precedent has been set but now is as a result of the ruling.

This ruling was huge because it can be applied to all kinds of things beyond fantasy leagues. For example, let's say you created a web site with player stats on it and MLB came after you and said, "Remove it or we will sue you." What do you do? You may "believe" you are right and that they have no case, but it will take a LOT of money to cover legal bills in order to prove that in court. This company just made it possible for you (or whoever) to never have to fight that fight.

As a said, very groundbreaking .. common sense or not .. logical or not .. it's now precedent ..

-Reality

It doesn't affect much outside of MLB fantasy actually. The MLB was advised not to require licenses for stats. As far as I'm aware, no other professional league requires licenses for stats. It's simply too obvious that it's not a protected property. The MLB was wrong, everyone knew it, and when they pushed it to the edge they lost.

 

[Reality]

It doesn't affect much outside of MLB fantasy actually.

Actually, as a web developer, I can tell you this ruling affects a great number of people that I know. This ruling can now be used to justify arguments for other legal cases beyond Fantasy Leagues and even beyond MLB.

The MLB was advised not to require licenses for stats.

By who? The companies beind sued by MLB? Of course they are going to say that

As far as I'm aware, no other professional league requires licenses for stats.

This is completely irrelevant. If MLB had succeeded in charging for their stats, it would not be too long before the other sports leagues did the same. Just because they are not doing it today does not mean they will never do it.

It's simply too obvious that it's not a protected property.

Again, just because something is obvious does not mean that companies won't sue over it. For example, you have over 2,500 posts on this site. I could file a lawsuit right now against you for something stupid like "Spamming CowboysZone in an attempt to disrupt the operation of the site." Would it be a stupid lawsuit? Of course, but I could still file it and you would have to defend it or the judge would make a ruling based on the evidence my lawyers would provide against you. While you can assume a judge would know better, just remember that something like this could easily be proven in court if the judge only hears one side of the argument.

All it takes is an organization with a lot of money behind it and a warped view of intellectual property rights and you would find yourself with two options .. spending a lot of money defending it just to prove you are right or giving in and saying it is not worth it. While it is easy to say, "Well, I would stand up and fight the lawsuit no matter what, even if I had to spend every dollar I own and borrow money," organizations quickly assess the financial capabilities of the person being sued and can use that as a tactic. They can file motion after motion causing the case to go on indefinitely while bleeding you dry.

The MLB was wrong, everyone knew it, and when they pushed it to the edge they lost.

Right, but now that they have been "pushed to the edge and lost" the next site, company, person, etc. will not have to fight that fight. That is why it is a major groundbreaking ruling. Now, even the small fan site who does not have a lot of resources does not have to worry about the NFL, MLB, Nascar, etc. coming after it over stats and other related content from their sports leagues.

-Reality

 

[NorthTexan95]

If I read that article correcly, many online fantasy sites had been paying MLB 9% of their income for the rights? With this ruling they won't have to. Therefore, MLB has removed a source of income for themselves because they got greedy.

 

[theogt]

Reality, simply put the decision changes nothing in the law. If I go and kill 20 people and I'm finally convicted for it, is that a groundbreaking decision? It may be newsworthy, but its certainly not a groundbreaking decision. It's quite obvious that murder is illegal--in just the same respect, it's quite obvious that facts are not protected property. The MLB was advised by lots of people. I can't imagine its counsel didn't advise it of the likelihood of this decision.

 

[theogt]

Again, just because something is obvious does not mean that companies won't sue over it. For example, you have over 2,500 posts on this site. I could file a lawsuit right now against you for something stupid like "Spamming CowboysZone in an attempt to disrupt the operation of the site." Would it be a stupid lawsuit? Of course, but I could still file it and you would have to defend it or the judge would make a ruling based on the evidence my lawyers would provide against you. While you can assume a judge would know better, just remember that something like this could easily be proven in court if the judge only hears one side of the argument.

All it takes is an organization with a lot of money behind it and a warped view of intellectual property rights and you would find yourself with two options .. spending a lot of money defending it just to prove you are right or giving in and saying it is not worth it. While it is easy to say, "Well, I would stand up and fight the lawsuit no matter what, even if I had to spend every dollar I own and borrow money," organizations quickly assess the financial capabilities of the person being sued and can use that as a tactic. They can file motion after motion causing the case to go on indefinitely while bleeding you dry.

Summary judgment is a powerful tool in federal courts. You're obviously going to incur discovery costs defending a law suit up to the dispositve motion, but with an outcome so obvious, the MLB or any other deep pocket isn't going to waste the money on discovery.

 

[Reality]

Reality, simply put the decision changes nothing in the law. If I go and kill 20 people and I'm finally convicted for it, is that a groundbreaking decision? It may be newsworthy, but its certainly not a groundbreaking decision. It's quite obvious that murder is illegal--in just the same respect, it's quite obvious that facts are not protected property. The MLB was advised by lots of people. I can't imagine its counsel didn't advise it of the likelihood of this decision.

Comparing criminal acts and intellectual property litigation is completely ridiculous. A groundbreaking decision is one that affects a great number of people (which this does) and that removes the need for other people or organizations to defend against it in the future. I realize you are only thinking, "Hey, it's fantasy leagues, big deal" but I can tell you this has far reaching effects beyond fantasy leagues and MLB. There are a lot of IP lawsuits in many different areas (not MLB/Fantasy Leagues) that are active right now that will use the MLB ruling as the basis of their argument.

In fact, there are a couple of sites that I can now create that I wanted to create for a long time but never did because I felt that if they got popular (they may not, but IF they did) I would be hit with a C&D order from the major sports organizations.

There are so many "obviously stupid" IP lawsuits out there right now that a lot of developers and organizations avoid entering markets just to remove the risk of potential litigation. I have been on both ends of IP litigation and can tell you, the process is long, tedious and very expensive.

The bottom line is that this was a major groundbreaking ruling for anti-intellectual property activists across the nation. You can keep saying it wasn't, but I can assure you, in my line of work, it was a very important ruling.

-Reality