the Superbowl stupidity

[ActuallyInTheBiz]

Yesterday shortly after 4pm on WZZO the doofus DJ (actually local and live, amazingly!) was talking about the Ravens-Texans game. He said the names RAVENS and TEXANS, proceeded to talk about the playoffs and then was afraid to say SUPERBOWL so he said "championship game." No, no, no! ALL of the NFL terms are copyrighted - team names, division names, and "Superbowl" - so you can either say ALL of them or NONE of them, depending on the context. This DJ clearly had NO IDEA how this works and completely messed it up.

You can use all of the NFL terms (yes, even "Superbowl"!) when talking about the NFL and the games in a conversational, editorial way, ie: when giving updates on the games, your predictions for the playoffs, etc.

What you're NOT allowed to do is use any of the NFL terms in conjunction with promoting a commercial business or event that is not an official NFL event. For example, if Joe Blow's Corner Bar (not an official Superbowl sponsor) is promoting that the Superbowl will be on their 50 TVs, then they can't say "Superbowl" or the team names in their commercials and the DJs can't use the terms when talking about the event, either. BUT...if Bud Light (an official Superbowl sponsor) is doing a promotional event for the Superbowl at at local bar, then both the station and the commercial can say "Superbowl" when promoting it.

The rules are not that difficult to understand! It's simply a matter of copyright ownership of all of the NFL terms and names. You can't try and profit off the NFL's copyrighted terms unless it's an official event or the business has paid them to be an official sponsor.

I can't lay all the blame on this ZZO jock for screwing it up so royally. It goes back to station management. They either don't understand the rules themselves (scary), or they haven't explained the rules to their staff. The key word in Program Director is DIRECTOR. Direct your staff so they're equipped with knowledge and so they don't sound like morons!

 

[KeithE4]

Yesterday shortly after 4pm on WZZO the doofus DJ (actually local and live, amazingly!) was talking about the Ravens-Texans game. He said the names RAVENS and TEXANS, proceeded to talk about the playoffs and then was afraid to say SUPERBOWL so he said "championship game." No, no, no! ALL of the NFL terms are copyrighted - team names, division names, and "Superbowl" - so you can either say ALL of them or NONE of them, depending on the context. This DJ clearly had NO IDEA how this works and completely messed it up.

The name S***r B**l is a trademark of the N******l F******l L****e (I wouldn't want Radio-Info to get in trouble by repeating trademarked names that they or I haven't paid the license fee to use. ;D ), but I believe the team names, logos, uniforms, and the like are owned by the teams themselves, subject to some league rules that they all agree on. And you can't copyright or trademark the words "North," "South," "East," or "West" any more than Microsoft could copyright the word "Windows" - they tried and lost. I'm not sure if initials like NFL, NFC, and AFC are copyrightable either.

We go through this every year.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

Actually, the NFL is not the true benefactor of the trademark, but the companies that PAY the NFL to USE the trademark are. Hence, WZZO's approach is correct. If another radio station (or network) has paid to broadcast the game (etc.), then that company would be the benefactor and would have a problem with others using the term in their line of biz. The pertinent term is 'in furtherance of an enterprise' and denotes profit being made from the use/display of the copyrighted work.

As the NFL has become somewhat prickly about who can use the trademark and under what terms, I would agree that WZZO should just steer clear of it altogether.

In fairness, however, the NFL is unlikely to be interested in small-time stuff (local bars, etc.) as true damages can only be had from someone whose pockets have some depth. Still, I'd rather just avoid any possibility of trouble.

Interestingly, NASCAR seems to want to follow in the footsteps of the NFL. Well, at least they did before their growth leveled off...

Sorry for the detail...this is my thing...

 

[landtuna]

Why not just refer to it as the Stupidbowl and offend everyone? ;D

It usually turns out that way anyway.

 

[ActuallyInTheBiz]

nope, ALL of the NFL terms are copyrighted: team names, division names, and "Superbowl." The rules as stated in my original post are correct. You can either say ALL of them or NONE of them, depending on the context. BELIEVE me. I've gotten word from corporate radio lawyers on it.

The same rules that apply to the term "Superbowl" also apply to the team names. That's why bars that are not official NFL sponsors have to say "The birds" instead of The Eagles....LOL. It sounds silly, but it makes perfect sense.

 

[ActuallyInTheBiz]

If another radio station (or network) has paid to broadcast the game (etc.), then that company would be the benefactor and would have a problem with others using the term in their line of biz.

Absolutely incorrect. You can CERTAINLY say Superbowl when speaking about it conversationally or editorially. NBC, who has the rights to air the game, LOVES that other media outlets are talking about it. Are you kidding?! NBC LOVES that ESPN (and everybody else) is talking about Superbowl predictions.

 

[Daveradio]

As we've stated before, they don't want you to use the NFL-owned term "Superbowl" to advertise businesses, promotions, etc. But OF COURSE you can talk about it ad nauseum. It made me laugh to think about a radio station taking a poll on air: "OK, who do you think will win the big game, that team from Baltimore or the team from New England?" Fair use allows to to talk about Microsoft, the Yankees, McDonald's or the SUPER BOWL.

Gimme a break. The whole thing is pretty stupid. Making money off the teams and their names is one thing. But if I want to hold an Advance Auto Parts Little Caesar's Cotton Bowl Pizza Party Giveaway, I should be able to at least call it the Cotton Bowl Pizza Party Giveaway. Or the World Series Big TV giveaway.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

If another radio station (or network) has paid to broadcast the game (etc.), then that company would be the benefactor and would have a problem with others using the term in their line of biz.

Absolutely incorrect. You can CERTAINLY say Superbowl when speaking about it conversationally or editorially. NBC, who has the rights to air the game, LOVES that other media outlets are talking about it. Are you kidding?! NBC LOVES that ESPN (and everybody else) is talking about Superbowl predictions.

You are wrong.

The reason people PAY to be an official sponsor is to prevent someone else from using it in that capacity. Again, the only entity who may have a problem is someone who PAID for the rights and it would be in their interest to prevent others from profiting from it. Think offical leg splint or pain medication. Those not paying for that positioning run the risk of infringment should they try to position themselves similarly.

NBC paid for the Superbowl rights...who they have a problem with is their decision, not the NFL. As you mention, talking about it benefits them as they paid to be the benefactor.

 

[jeffwoehrle]

As we've stated before, they don't want you to use the NFL-owned term "Superbowl" to advertise businesses, promotions, etc. But OF COURSE you can talk about it ad nauseum. It made me laugh to think about a radio station taking a poll on air: "OK, who do you think will win the big game, that team from Baltimore or the team from New England?" Fair use allows to to talk about Microsoft, the Yankees, McDonald's or the SUPER BOWL.

Gimme a break. The whole thing is pretty stupid. Making money off the teams and their names is one thing. But if I want to hold an Advance Auto Parts Little Caesar's Cotton Bowl Pizza Party Giveaway, I should be able to at least call it the Cotton Bowl Pizza Party Giveaway. Or the World Series Big TV giveaway.

Consider this scenario:

Let’s say that Nassau paid for the Super Bowl rights (presumably with an I.O.U.) for all the markets in which they had a station. The rights included airing of the game and the use of the trademark.

It would be up to Nassau to decide if the Clear Channel air personality’s use of their acquired property (the trademark) was proper or not. If they decided to pursue CC for infringement, CC would lose, period.

Now, I don’t know if the Super Bowl is even a radio event or if any network or group has paid for the rights. That said, I think it prudent to assume that someone has until you know different.

This thread began with the CC jock being chastised for taking a prudent approach in not mentioning the Super Bowl by name. My point is that such a move was entirely appropriate absent knowledge that the use is, in fact, permitted.

 

[Daveradio]

Consider this scenario:

Let’s say that Nassau paid for the Super Bowl rights (presumably with an I.O.U.) for all the markets in which they had a station. The rights included airing of the game and the use of the trademark.

It would be up to Nassau to decide if the Clear Channel air personality’s use of their acquired property (the trademark) was proper or not. If they decided to pursue CC for infringement, CC would lose, period.

Now, I don’t know if the Super Bowl is even a radio event or if any network or group has paid for the rights. That said, I think it prudent to assume that someone has until you know different.

This thread began with the CC jock being chastised for taking a prudent approach in not mentioning the Super Bowl by name. My point is that such a move was entirely appropriate absent knowledge that the use is, in fact, permitted.

That would be rights to broadcast the game, not rights to every mention of said game. Thanks to Fair Use and just plain common sense, jocks can talk about the game as the game all they want, just as news or sports reporters can. What can't be done is, as you said "the official jockstrap of the Super Bowl" unless they paid for it. Or "the Super Bowl Party special at Vinny's Pizzeria is 2 large and 50 wings for $40."

 

[jeffwoehrle]

Consider this scenario:

Let’s say that Nassau paid for the Super Bowl rights (presumably with an I.O.U.) for all the markets in which they had a station. The rights included airing of the game and the use of the trademark.

It would be up to Nassau to decide if the Clear Channel air personality’s use of their acquired property (the trademark) was proper or not. If they decided to pursue CC for infringement, CC would lose, period.

Now, I don’t know if the Super Bowl is even a radio event or if any network or group has paid for the rights. That said, I think it prudent to assume that someone has until you know different.

This thread began with the CC jock being chastised for taking a prudent approach in not mentioning the Super Bowl by name. My point is that such a move was entirely appropriate absent knowledge that the use is, in fact, permitted.

That would be rights to broadcast the game, not rights to every mention of said game. Thanks to Fair Use and just plain common sense, jocks can talk about the game as the game all they want, just as news or sports reporters can. What can't be done is, as you said "the official jockstrap of the Super Bowl" unless they paid for it. Or "the Super Bowl Party special at Vinny's Pizzeria is 2 large and 50 wings for $40."

The term Super Bowl is a trademark. I suggest you research exactly what that means.

 

[Daveradio]

The term Super Bowl is a trademark. I suggest you research exactly what that means.


[/quote]
So no one can legally talk about it on the news, sports and jocks. It cannot be reported in the newspaper without expressed written consent of the NFL. That would mean every sports team. And while we're at it, every business. Let me check that on my tablet put out by the fruit company-named corporation.

That's what you may believe.

But that's not how it works.

"Fair Use" allows one to say on the air "I went to McDonald's today and a guy was eating a Big Mac with extra Heinz ketchup while listening on his iPad to the Yankees beat the Mets. I can't believe the Super Bowl is on next week!" Those are all trademarked, too.

We cannot legally say we've having a Super Bowl McDonald's party where you can watch the Mets-Yankees game for a $5 admission.

Just about everything is trademarked or owned. But that doesn't stop a LEGAL use of it in public. Why are newspapers, magazine and sports reporters allowed to say Super Bowl and report on the game? Or ANY game. Or ANY trademark? Because they all got permission?

 

[landtuna]

I heard what might just be the silliest almost-quote tonight. It was a spot on a local radio station advertising a party for the "super big game".

 

[Daveradio]

Thanks to the "leading search engine," here's a site I've quoted before (not by permission, but I'll attribute the site). And since he allows RSS feeds, I'll assume he's OK with "fair use:" www.broadcastlawblog.com

Here's an article which discusses "Super Bowl" and the "Fair Use."

http://www.broadcastlawblog.com/200...ermission-but-how-about-in-other-programming/

The term "Super Bowl" is a trademark owned by the National Football League, and it is protected very aggressively. What does that mean? The biggest no-no of all is to use the term "Super Bowl" in any advertising or promotional announcements that are not sanctioned by the NFL. This prohibition includes sweepstakes and contests as well. Advertisers pay high licensing fees to the NFL for the right to use the term "Super Bowl" in their advertising. You will almost certainly hear from the NFL's attorneys if you use the term in advertising without explicit authorization from the NFL. So no "Super Bowl sales" in your ads - and don't refer to your station as the "Super Bowl Authority" in your promotional statements. These restrictions explain why you often hear it referred to as "The Big Game." But this restriction does not mean you cannot utter the words on air under any circumstances.

There is a court-created trademark concept known as "nominative fair use." Under this concept, trademarks can be used when necessary under certain conditions. First, the mark must not be readily identifiable in any other way. For example, you do not have to refer to the Pittsburgh Steelers as "the professional football team from Pittsburgh." Secondly, you can only use the mark to the extent necessary to identify it. Repeated gratuitous use would cross the line - for instance if you repeatedly state that your station is "the place to hear everything about the Super Bowl." And third, you cannot do anything to suggest a false connection or sponsorship arrangement. What does this really mean? It means that DJs can use the term "Super Bowl" editorially in discussing the game on air (but not in a way to imply that the station has a connection to the game, or not in a repeated way analogous to a station slogan or positioning statement). It means that news stories about the game can refer to the "Super Bowl." The NFL will not consider such uses to be trademark infringement so long as the use is reasonable. In fact, from an editorial perspective, the NFL appreciates some hype about the game to attract viewers and general consumer interest in the game.

 

[Tom Wells]

Because the NFL would appreciate buzz about the event, yet would procsecute others who would profit in a secondary or tertiary way, it might just be proper to scrupulously avoid the trademarked term completely.

There is no reason not poke back at the NFL's attitude by making it a big obvious stumbling block every time it comes up.

For years, we have used the term coined by Charles Schulz, used by Peppermint Patty; The Splendid Bowl.

 

[landtuna]

Is it permissible to just avoid the whole overblown fiasco?

In its earliest days the "big game" was a genuine football contest. It has since become a media circus with football being only a small piece. I've gotten very tired of all the fluff and hoopla surrounding the actual game which, more likely than not, isn't anywhere close to the best exhibition of an actual football game.

 

[KeithE4]

Is it permissible to just avoid the whole overblown fiasco?

No. ;D

In its earliest days the "big game" was a genuine football contest. It has since become a media circus with football being only a small piece. I've gotten very tired of all the fluff and hoopla surrounding the actual game which, more likely than not, isn't anywhere close to the best exhibition of an actual football game.

I'll just ignore the hype and watch college hoops for the next week and a half. This one should be a good game, though.

 

[Tom Wells]

Is it permissible to just avoid the whole overblown fiasco?

It's pretty easy to forget about football once the pond has frozen over.

Football in November, OK. Football in December is going a bit too far.
Football is January is silly, Football in February is exploitation of the clueless.

 

[flashback]

i am glad i am not one of the people who work downtown or have to go downtown in indianapolis durring the next week of superbowl activities.it already is becoming a major inconvience.

i wonder how much good it does the community to have an event finacually and if it is worth the expense it goes through and the inconvience on part of the community ,like workers near the superbowl site , that do not benefit from it.

i would like to see a unbiased financal analysis on if with statium costs ,other costs the community pays and such the community gains or loses money having a major league levil sports team.

the taxpayers pay so much over time but event costs are so high most people in the city games are in probally can`t afford to see games live.

 

[ActuallyInTheBiz]

I already mentioned, in my initial post, that you can freely mention "Superbowl" or ANY of the copyrighted NFL terms in any kind of not-for-profit general conversation and news reporting, so I don't know why this thread circled back to THAT again.

In a post LAST year, I was wrong about establishments not being able to use "The Big Game" when doing unofficial Superbowl promotions. My legal dept. a few years ago had told me to NOT say that EVER, back when it was being challenged by the NFL. It *IS* allowed. The NFL tried to copyright that phrase in 2007, but withdrew the fight. I can admit when I'm wrong. That's important so we all learn.

I know I've brought this issue up two years in a row in regards to radio, LOL, but it bugs me to no end when jocks STILL get it wrong. It's really not that difficult - just always keep the CONTEXT in mind. As I said, it's a matter of certain Program Directors not being a teacher and leader of their staffs, or not even knowing the rules themselves. Unreal. Ok, I'm done. Sorry...and thanks.