11/21/24
August 08, 2006
Fantasy Baseball's Big League Battle: I can see the point of the people who own fantasy baseball team sites, the stats are in the public domain. However, for better or worse, I don't see how MLB can lose a court case that stops fantasy sites from using the players names. MLB does own the rights to the use of the names and they do have a right to protect that. Still, even though I don't play fantasy anything (or at least anything that I can talk about here) many of my friends do and it does seem a little shortsighted of MLB to go this far.
posted by commander cody to baseball at 03:07 AM - 25 comments
It isn't really clear that people 'own' their names in any meaningful traditional sense, especially when they are celebrities. That said, all the trends in IP law are in favor of MLB on this one- increased control and proprietarization. I know I've seen some good postings from IP law professors on this; I'll see if I can dig them up later.
posted by tieguy at 07:05 AM on August 08, 2006
Even if MLB wins, they're gonna lose. Can't see the forest for the damn trees, I say, I say.
posted by WeedyMcSmokey at 07:55 AM on August 08, 2006
IF MLB wins I don't see it affecting the true fans anyway. They'll continue to have fantasy leagues...except MLB will get a chunk of change from each one. Now, if MLB is dumb enough to forbid free fantasy leagues from licensed companies or stop fan sites from discussing the games and players...that'll kill the sport. That moment of hyperbole brought to you by...
posted by ?! at 08:07 AM on August 08, 2006
Says Charlie Wiegert, of CDM Fantasy Sports, "Our belief is in operating our games, the players' stats are in the public domain. They're printed inside of every newspaper in the country." That's what I think is the key point. Newspapers, it can be said, also make money because some people want to use them to access statistics for major league baseball players. Do those newspapers, in turn, have to fork over a percentage of their profits to Major League Baseball? That said, many of these sites, whether it's ESPN, Yahoo, whatever, do pull in a great deal of cash for running these leagues. In their defense, it is a rather substantial undertaking that requires constant monitoring and attention. But, at the very worst, they'll all have to pay something to MLB and everyone will continue with fantasy as they have been. It is ridiculous, though, because fantasy sports, along with betting, are two of the single biggest reasons for fans paying so much attention to pro sports. This type of thing can only serve to sour some people's opinion of major league baseball, in this instance.
posted by dyams at 11:07 AM on August 08, 2006
fantasy sports, along with betting, are two of the single biggest reasons for fans paying so much attention to pro sports. I think you hit that nail on the head. For the most fervent of us, anyway.
posted by mjkredliner at 11:25 AM on August 08, 2006
I think that if MLB is foolish enough to go forward with this they'll fit into the old saying about cutting one's nose off to spite their face. Yes they do own the rights and they have the legal right to push this, but as I said before, it's incredibly short-sighted of them.
posted by commander cody at 12:32 PM on August 08, 2006
I hope these cases don't end up settling, I would love to see this play out.
posted by bperk at 02:01 PM on August 08, 2006
Is the strike over yet? It's been 10 years since I cared, and apparently the sport still hasn't changed. Conception for the HOF!
posted by LostInDaJungle at 03:26 PM on August 08, 2006
Wow that was fast! I assume, even though the article doesn't say so, that MLB will appeal.
posted by commander cody at 03:46 PM on August 08, 2006
I was surprised to see this suit, but not the results, since case law on telephone and other similar directories established a pretty solid precedent.
posted by billsaysthis at 03:53 PM on August 08, 2006
billsaysthis: yeah, but there was no right of publicity involved in the standard telephone book cases, so the MLB's claim is substantially different. The MLB in fact concedes that the stats involved can be used, just not the names. So they would not protest against, say, what all the NBA games used to do with the anonymous #23 who played for the Bulls. It looks like (just skimming) the judge basically tosses the claim because the use of the names is more or less non-commercial- i.e., fantasy operators don't claim that Barry Bonds endorses their game, just that he is part of it. Interestingly, the judge says that if the player's pictures were used it would probably be a violation of the publicity right, but names are not enough. Reading more... huh, total smackdown of MLB, basically. Pretty thorough and brutal. Enjoyable reading for those of us who think that the owning of ideas is a dangerous trend. :) (I am not a lawyer. I start law school in a week, though, so I have to get used to reading this crap ;)
posted by tieguy at 05:43 PM on August 08, 2006
don't we have fantasy football why can they use players names in that this is screwed up do they want more money it seems to me they make as much already
posted by luther70 at 06:16 PM on August 08, 2006
I'd be pretty angry if MLB did succeed with that. It's not as if they aren't suffering from a pretty bad blow to their image now, what with the steroid scandal and already losing/having lost ground to the NFL as the #1 sport in the United States. I start law school in a week, though, so I have to get used to reading this crap Good luck in school! We're going to need you when MLB sues our Yahoo fantasy baseball league!
posted by jerseygirl at 06:35 PM on August 08, 2006
A federal judge in St. Louis just ruled that all fantasy leagues could indeed use all stats associated with MLB! I can not link the story, but is under Yahoo sports.
posted by nflhou02 at 06:41 PM on August 08, 2006
Good luck in school! We're going to need you when MLB sues our Yahoo fantasy baseball league! "Our?" I'm not the one in first place, kemosabe. At this point, I think we'd all agree, it's your league. I didn't see nothin'.
posted by The_Black_Hand at 06:52 PM on August 08, 2006
tieguy, maybe TSPORT$4SOM3THING can help with your homework.
posted by yerfatma at 07:17 PM on August 08, 2006
I'm not a lawyer either, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express and.....oh never mind.
posted by commander cody at 07:32 PM on August 08, 2006
jg: yeah, my plan is to be the IP lawyer for the little dudes, so this case would have been right up my alley. And I'll always need pro bono work. So give me a ring, assuming you don't get sued until after mid-2009. :)
posted by tieguy at 08:50 PM on August 08, 2006
Judge rules statistics not intellectual property of MLB
posted by hb74147 at 09:07 AM on August 09, 2006
"intellectual property of MLB"? That is an oxymoron on the same level as "military intelligence".
posted by mjkredliner at 09:53 AM on August 09, 2006
This has been going on for a while now. I am glad to see MLB lose this one.
posted by jojomfd1 at 11:27 AM on August 09, 2006
It is definitely a thorough loss for MLB. After the judge already decided that MLB would lose, she went through the added trouble of mentioning all the other ways in which MLB would lose. It looks like MLB is going to have to add some bells and whistles to their fantasy licensing or they will lose that revenue. They need pictures. They need players talking. Time for MLB to rethink.
posted by bperk at 12:03 PM on August 09, 2006
Not enough egg on their collective face, MLB plans to appeal. quoting from a statement... We are disappointed by the court's decision ... We expect to appeal the decision and remain confident that we will prevail in that effort. We continue to believe that the use of the players, without their consent, to create this type of commercial venture is improper. I agree with the ruling, but even if I didn't I think the last thing MLB should be doing is trying to restrict what they put out there. They do that enough already with their ridiculous black-out rules.
posted by SummersEve at 08:09 AM on August 10, 2006
I can see their point in regard to other people getting payment for something they own. But it won't do their PR any good.