Baseball players' stats aren't property
The Major League Baseball Players' Association has lost its lawsuit against fantasy baseball leagues for using players' names and statistics without permission. Facts aren't property -- even when they're facts about you.
In a 2-1 decision, the 8th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals panel ruled that CBC Distribution and Marketing Inc. doesn't have to pay the players, even though it profits by using their names and statistics.Link (Thanks, Jason!)The Major League Baseball Players Association had argued that companies like CBC are essentially stealing money from players, who charge big fees to endorse things like tennis shoes and soft drinks. The ruling could have a broad impact on the fantasy league industry, which generates more than $1.5 billion annually from millions of participants.
the latest
latest episodes
The linked article, and by extension, your headline, mischaracterize the 8th Circuit's decision. The court ruled that the players' names and stats are property, but that CBC's First Amendment rights trump the players' right of publicity (which is a type of property interest). A better summary of the case and its background can be found here. The full opinion can be found here. Analysis here and here.
The linked article, and by extension, your headline, mischaracterizes the 8th Circuit's decision. The court ruled that the players' names and stats are property, but that CBC's First Amendment rights trump the players' right of publicity (which is a type of property interest). A better summary of the case and its background can be found here. The full opinion can be found here. Analysis here and here.
The court didn't rule that they're property -- they ruled that they had some copyrightable subject elements.
Intellectual property is property. If it has to be licensed, it's property. If rights exist to be reserved or doled out, there is a property interest. A right of publicity is a type of intangible property, as is a copyrightable work. The court states on p. 6 of the opinion that "Because we think that it is clear that CBC uses baseball players' identities in its fantasy baseball products for purposes of profit, we believe that their identities are being used for commercial advantage and that the players therefore offered sufficient evidence to make out a cause of action for violation of their rights of publicity under Missouri law." The court then goes on to rule that CBC's First Amendment rights trump the Missouri state claim, and continues on p. 9 "Because we hold that CBC's first amendment rights in offering its fantasy baseball products supersede the players' rights of publicity, we need not reach CBC's alternative argument that federal copyright law preempts the players' state law rights of publicity." [emphasis mine] (Sorry for the double post on the first comment.)
Intellectual property is property? You're mistaking a metaphor for the real thing. See, for example, Neal Netanel or Pam Samuelson on the difference between copyright's "bundle of rights" and a property right.
I think you're taking my previous comment too far. I didn't create an account and comment to get into an argument on intellectual property policy. My original intent in commenting, which I think is still correct, is that your post mischaracterizes the 8th Circuit's holding. The court agreed that the players had a legitimate cause of action under Missouri law, but that in this particular case their rights were superseded by CBC's federal rights. I don't want this to get out of hand, but please point out where in the opinion the court states that the players' right of publicity in their statistics is not a property right. The majority reasons on p. 8 that because players make loads of money anyway that they therefore aren't missing out economically, but that itself is squishy reasoning. My ultimate point is that since your site gets a lot of traffic, and since I think this is a significant case, I think it's important that the court's holding be accurately described.