Quote:
Originally Posted by Tristan Lall
If created in the U.S., it's a copyrighted work if it is a creative work of authorship fixed in a tangible medium of expression.
I didn't actually view the allegedly infringing material, so I'm curious: was 1676's footage original (i.e. the video was a creative work by someone on the team1), or was it a direct copy of FIRST's feed? Because if it was a direct copy, no matter how much work you put into making that direct copy, no new copyright exists.2
|
It's not. They sit in the stands and--with almost ridiculous diligence--record every match.
I doubt Ryan is talking about suing anyone. Is it legal? I don't know, and frankly I don't care. Would your grandmother be ok with you copying someone's hard work and getting something out of it for yourself without asking? Use your own compass. Mine says it doesn't matter what other good could come of it, you're taking something (video views) from someone, you ask and you credit.