When you take it that far, you're missing an important fact that takes a perfectly good analogy and makes it a false one, that being copywrite.Originally Posted by sukie
To answer your question with your analogy (not mine), the duplicate is not yours. However, the other guy cannot legally sell it or any of the photos in it. To do away with the analogy, the rights to rebroadcast the tapes rest solely with the NFL.
Last edited by gebobs; 02-03-2016 at 11:35 AM.
Lehner's history. He just doesn't know it yet.
Except, the NFL doesn't own the tape, it isn't rightfully theirs. They might control rebroadcasting rights..but they certainly don't own the physical the tape.
But to make your scenario a little more accurate....
the "wedding tape" is actually a tape of one of the Kardashian's weddings. They got married to stage a wedding for whatever network they are on. At the time, it didn't go over too well in the ratings.
Being a Kardashian, the wedding tape was copied over by one of their sex tapes, which..is in the public domain by now.
One of the guests now has the only copy to it. Knowing that Ms. Kardashian (pick one), if they purchase the tape, will rebroadcast it and obtain millions in advertising fees, DVD's etc. You offer to sell it to them. You even offer to put some of the proceeds to charity (which this guy did btw).
They are insulted, and think you're holding them hostage for a tape they didn't bother to retain.
Instead, they piece together snippets of the wedding from still photos, and the end product looks like Bruce Lee cutouts in Game of Death.
The NFL isn't being sentimental about this. And whatever principles they are adhering to, idk..
Hell...a copy of the Declaration of Independence was sold in the early 90's for twice this amount. If there is anything that should be "donated" its something like that.
But..it went out on Sotheby's.
Now that this story is out, I can see that happening, regardless of the current broadcast rights. There's a good chance a wealthy sports memorabilia collector might want it.
Luckily, unlike the SB tape, the negotiations for the sale/transfer of the tape WERE preserved.
Jon Voight plays a perfect Roger Goodell.
I'm so glad I bought his LeBaron.
Last edited by cookie G; 02-03-2016 at 11:41 AM.
Vehicles previously belonging to Periodontists usually have high resale value, good on you.
All analogies are imperfect by nature. They are, to use another analogy, like a Monet. From afar, you see the flowers and the girls playing in the field. Closer, all you see are brushstrokes.
The NFL does not own the tape. Really, they couldn't care less about the actual tape. The NFL cares about the broadcast rights of the tape. It's the only thing they care about. If they can get the tape and use it or a broadcast, I'm sure they would love it. If they can't, no one's the worse.
Haupt, bless his soul, is a lucky man, but he doesn't have a leg to stand on. He has the tape, but the tape is not what's really for sale, the broadcast rights which the NFL owns and has never lost. He should take his $30k and feel fortunate.
Joe Fo Sho (02-03-2016),pmoon6 (02-03-2016)
No leg to stand on?! Why he could just wait until the broadcast enters the public domain! The laws, as they were in 1967, allow this copyright to enter the public domain in a mere 95 years, which would be the year 2062! That is, of course, if the Disney corporation doesn't have them changed again like they did last time when Mickey Mouse was about to enter the public domain..
gebobs (02-03-2016)
Its more like a Babe Ruth autographed baseball. The ball itself isn't worth much,, nor is the ink. But the rarity makes the value.
This is a one of a kind item.
If that's all the NFL is offering, I'll keep it in a vault. A Jackie Robinson glove used in the World series sold for nearly $400,000 once.
I'll take my chances with its value.
Historian (02-09-2016)
I'd take the 30k and run.
gebobs (02-03-2016)
Indeed. In and of itself, it is a collectible, nothing more.
As far as we know. If he is within his rights to sell the tape (and I'm not sure he is), by all means, sell to the highest bidder like any other piece of memorabilia. Don't wait too long though. With all this publicity, rival tapes, better ones even, may miraculously appear.This is a one of a kind item.
Thing is what the NFL Network broadcasted of the game was every play with the radio broadcast.
So what are they really gaining by paying this guy anything?
The only "value" to the league the game has is what they can make broadcasting it, well they've been broadcasting Superbowl 1 the past couple weeks now off the work they did on it to make it "complete-ish"
They gain an incomplete game with the TV broadcast. Something that won't generate any more ad revenue than what they have already. And something they still will have to do some editing work on.
Cost vs Value...simply put there is 30k value to this tape in the eyes of the NFL. Which is 30k more value than I'd say it has to them.
Did the NFL have the disclaimer about copying, reproducing, etc on the broadcast at the time?
YardRat Wall of Fame
#56 DARRYL TALLEY #29 DERRICK BURROUGHS#22 FRED JACKSON #95 KYLE WILLIAMS
Thanked for the first sentences and the Impressionist reference.
Beautifully said.
gebobs (02-04-2016)
Depending on what pieces the NFL has, they could edit it together with Haupt's version and get a pretty complete game. That is, of course, unless the pieces the NFL are missing are the same ones that Haupt is missing (more or less) So I bet that's the case, i.e., Haupt may only have a few mins here and there that the NFL doesn't already have, so net net it wouldn't be that valuable to them. Otherwise I have to believe they will ultimately come back with a higher offer, maybe $250K or something.
Joe Fo Sho (02-04-2016)
Probably not, but disclaimers are not really relevant. They have copywrite.
he made an offer, they countered and they didn't get anywhere. if it was me, I would have pushed back on 30 and asked for 60 and been done with it. it's super bowl 1. I would never watch it if it was on nfl network. as we get more pass oriented and the footage looks dated, it's just not intriguing for younger fans. it would be interesting if a john scott type of thing broke out and all the fans started saying how badly they wanted to see the footage and that they wouldn't accept the current stuff.
You should not be surprisedNFL won’t pay man who has most of Super Bowl I on tape
No full recording of the original broadcast of Super Bowl I exists because in the 1960s networks rarely saved their tapes. But one man owns what is believed to be the closest thing to a full recording, tapes his late father made of most of the game, minus commercials, some plays that came right after commercial breaks, halftime and some of the third quarter.
That man, Troy Haupt, asked the NFL for $1 million for his dad’s old tapes. The NFL replied that it would give him $30,000. When Haupt spurned that offer, the NFL stopped talking to Haupt entirely, other than to warn him that if he sells the tapes to a third party, he’ll be violating the league’s copyright and the NFL will go after him.
more...
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com...owl-i-on-tape/
So the guy owns what is the single almost complete broadcast copy of the first Super Bowl IN EXISTENCE... In what I think is a lowball... askes for a million and the NFL that made, what, 10 BILLION last year... says nope... 30k.
DOUCHE Douche Douche.
* IF the NFL could pay the players minimum wage they would. This is why you have a union otherwise players would be making $30k
Please Make Sense
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote