Copyrights on fight footage
Posted: 16 Aug 2006, 07:40
Just wondering if anybody here knows a lot about this. Who owns fight footage? Is it the TV company who bought the rights? Is it the promoter who won the purse bid? Does the fighter have a stake in it? Or is it a mixture of all of these? And is there an expiry date on the rights?
Say with Mike Tyson for example and some of his fights. Would it be a case of one company buying the rights and selling them to companies in other countries who can do as they wish with it, or do they have to pay commission to the parent company on each showing of it?
All of the US TV companies seem to go to a lot of effort to prevent copyright infringement on fights that they have shown, but what value do they put on these fights? It's understandable that a TV company would not want viewing of their fights available on the Internet within the first few days, weeks or even months of the fight been screened. Obviously people knowing they can download for free or purchase fight copies cheaply will impact PPV sales and package subscriptions, but what value is there for the TV company in a fight that occured a year ago, or even longer?
Are fight rights something that are regularly bought and sold or do TV companies tend to keep hold of them? Would Sky be able to make DVD copies of fights they have screened from the US, or would these be owned by the parent company? In the case of the Hatton-Tszyu fight, this footage was being sold by the promotor (Warren) if I'm not mistaken.
The fact that fight highlights are being taken off youtube due to copyright infringement is an absolute joke. Wouldn't it boost the industry if people had an opportunity to see a fighter and be able to say "I really want to see this guy live next time". I don't understand it, can anybody shed some light on all of this?
Say with Mike Tyson for example and some of his fights. Would it be a case of one company buying the rights and selling them to companies in other countries who can do as they wish with it, or do they have to pay commission to the parent company on each showing of it?
All of the US TV companies seem to go to a lot of effort to prevent copyright infringement on fights that they have shown, but what value do they put on these fights? It's understandable that a TV company would not want viewing of their fights available on the Internet within the first few days, weeks or even months of the fight been screened. Obviously people knowing they can download for free or purchase fight copies cheaply will impact PPV sales and package subscriptions, but what value is there for the TV company in a fight that occured a year ago, or even longer?
Are fight rights something that are regularly bought and sold or do TV companies tend to keep hold of them? Would Sky be able to make DVD copies of fights they have screened from the US, or would these be owned by the parent company? In the case of the Hatton-Tszyu fight, this footage was being sold by the promotor (Warren) if I'm not mistaken.
The fact that fight highlights are being taken off youtube due to copyright infringement is an absolute joke. Wouldn't it boost the industry if people had an opportunity to see a fighter and be able to say "I really want to see this guy live next time". I don't understand it, can anybody shed some light on all of this?