Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

NFL Prevents Church from having a Superbowl Party!
Fall Creek Baptist Church Website ^

Posted on 02/01/2007 7:38:48 AM PST by pctech

Fall Creek Baptist Church Family...

We regret to inform you that we have had to cancel our bash to view the Colts game this Sunday in a family friendly environment due to the fact that the NFL believes we would be in violation of the Copyright Act, because we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal. We have appealed to their legal counsel and exhausted all options without success. We have been informed that the only exceptions to view the game are given to sports bars and restaurants. While we have argued that we only intend to provide a family oriented environment that will make no profit from the showing, the NFL claims that our event cannot proceed by law. Therefore, we have no choice but to challenge this in court or cancel the event. We choose to cancel the event. We deeply regret that we have been prohibited by the NFL from providing a family friendly environment for celebrating the Colts great season.

Pastor John


TOPICS: Miscellaneous; News/Current Events; US: Indiana
KEYWORDS: stupidbull; stuporbowel; superbowl
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last
To: Sloth

Though personally, I'm of the opinion that churches ought to spend their time and resources worshipping God. I know that sounds pretty crazy.


21 posted on 02/01/2007 7:50:31 AM PST by Sloth (The GOP is to DemonRats in politics as Michael Jackson is to Jeffrey Dahmer in babysitting.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 18 | View Replies]

To: pctech

This part also -

The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.
"While this may be a noble message," NFL assistant counsel Rachel L. Margolies wrote in a follow-up e-mail, "we are consistent in refusing the use of our game broadcasts in connection with events that promote a message, no matter the content."

The NFL has a right to protect their product - this isn't an example of anti-Christian bias or anything else you want to imagine into it.


22 posted on 02/01/2007 7:50:55 AM PST by Cable225 (I almost never post, and rarely reply - but I donate to FR. How about you?)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pctech

-- If anyone wants to read it I can supply a link or just go to Indystar.com. --

The link is on the page you linked to.


23 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:24 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: pctech
"This game is a licensed broadcast of the National Football League. Any description, reproduction, or rebraodcast of this game without the expressed written consent of the National Football League is prohibited."

They aren't just killing airtime.
24 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:31 AM PST by Thrownatbirth (.....when the sidewalks are safe for the little guy.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck
I read elsewhere on FR that tail-gate parties are also being banned in a one mile radius around the field.

I don't really see this "tailgating ban" as such a big deal. It's not like a "normal" regular-season game for the Dolphins, with "normal" (?) regular-season fans...it would be kind of difficult to tailgate with all the corporate jets if they tried to do that in the stadium parking lots...

25 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:38 AM PST by Ulysses ("Most of us go through life thinking we're Superman. Superman goes through life being Clark Kent!")
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: atomicpossum

Copyright law defines the size at which the broadcast image can be exhibited...?



No, it doesn't.

And it is trademark law (dubious) that supposedly prevents anyone from using the phrase "Super Bowl" in any commercial communication.


26 posted on 02/01/2007 7:51:49 AM PST by Atlas Sneezed (Your FRiendly FReeper Patent Attorney)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 12 | View Replies]

To: edcoil

Got it! I didn't see that before. Thanks for the heads up.


27 posted on 02/01/2007 7:53:13 AM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 5 | View Replies]

To: pctech

NEVER ADVERTISE!


28 posted on 02/01/2007 7:53:57 AM PST by massgopguy (I owe everything to George Bailey)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 27 | View Replies]

To: pctech
we had planned to show the game on a screen bigger than a 55 inch diagonal

Dear Pastor John,

A little tape around the perimeter of your televison can reduce the size to 54.999 inches.

29 posted on 02/01/2007 7:54:08 AM PST by MosesKnows
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: VRWCmember

I would have done the same thing (this situation is just another gestapo tactic of the NFL) but the church doesn't want to give the impression of being a law breaker so I can see why they cancelled it.


30 posted on 02/01/2007 7:54:53 AM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 7 | View Replies]

To: pctech

I think the SUPER BOWL® is smaller than it could be because the NFL is getting bad marketing and legal advice.

The one that gets me is making every business that wants to do something related to the SUPER BOWL® use the code word "The Big Game" because they'll get sued if they don't purchase a license to use the copy. I take it nobody buys the license because I don't hear anybody talk about the SUPER BOWL® in commercial advertising. Took me years to understand the "code word." I say, NFL, lighten up. Let them yell SUPER BOWL® from the mountaintops. As long as they're not selling NFL franchised merch, who gives a flip. Just makes them look like nazis.


31 posted on 02/01/2007 7:55:05 AM PST by ichabod1 ("Liberals read Karl Marx. Conservatives UNDERSTAND Karl Marx." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Tribune7

Prolly a megachurch.


32 posted on 02/01/2007 7:55:31 AM PST by ichabod1 ("Liberals read Karl Marx. Conservatives UNDERSTAND Karl Marx." Ronald Reagan)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 3 | View Replies]

To: Cable225
The league even took exception to the church's plan to influence nonmembers with a video highlighting the Christian testimonies of Colts coach Tony Dungy and Chicago Bears coach Lovie Smith.

I wasn't aware that the league held intellectual ownership of Tony and Lovie's religious views.
33 posted on 02/01/2007 7:55:43 AM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: pctech

The other day was a thread here about the NFL declaring a 1 mile radius around the stadium would be a No Tailgate Zone. Looking on Google Earth, there's neighborhoods surrounding the stadium. I'd like to know how they have the authority to ban what those people do in their own back yards, much less what the church watches on tv. And we thought Big Brother was merely the government.


34 posted on 02/01/2007 7:55:45 AM PST by mtbopfuyn (I think the border is kind of an artificial barrier - San Antonio councilwoman Patti Radle)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: sittnick

I do too actually, they haven't had anything worth seeing during the half-time if my memory serves.


35 posted on 02/01/2007 7:55:53 AM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 8 | View Replies]

To: Cable225

Those are 'NFL rules' (not 'copyright law' as previously stated)? How are those enforceable? What licensing agreement is an individual engaging in when they turn on a set to show a broadcast on the open airwaves? What legal premise gives the NFL power of enforcement and an ability to attach compulsory licensing to free broadcasts (other than the threat of legal intimidation through civil prosecution)? The church isn't engaged in reproduction of the materials (DVD, re-broadcast, or anything else).


36 posted on 02/01/2007 7:56:12 AM PST by atomicpossum (Replies must follow approved guidelines or you will be kill-filed without appeal.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cable225

The were initially notified because they were advertising to come watch the Super Bowl and listing the admission fee. A big no-no. Also, they were advertising the testimonials of NFL players.


37 posted on 02/01/2007 7:56:14 AM PST by UpAllNight
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 9 | View Replies]

To: Cable225
The NFL has a right to protect their product - this isn't an example of anti-Christian bias or anything else you want to imagine into it.

If they want to control their product in this way then they need to stick to pay-per-view only or some other private distribution method. As someone said earlier, don't broadcast it over my property on public airwaves.

Their copyright prevents taping it, redistributing it, etc.....but to say that it prohibits who I can have in my own house watching my own television and limiting what we can talk about at the viewing is UNREASONABLE. If I want to have 50 people over to talk about politics and watch a publicly broadcast program on a 60" television.....all on private property.....I will.

Can the Democratic National Committee prohibit us watching their convention and talking about certain things during it just because they are "copyrighted" images? Give me a break.

Can the DNC get mad at a certain manufacturer who gave money to the other party and prohibit viewing on "Hitachi" televisions?

I think not. These are unreasonable extensions of the copyright.
38 posted on 02/01/2007 7:56:52 AM PST by Arkinsaw
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: GoldCountryRedneck

Good point on both counts. I actually heard someone on a Chicago sports station that they had to set up a tailgate party 7 miles from the stadium! Go figure!


39 posted on 02/01/2007 7:57:22 AM PST by pctech
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 11 | View Replies]

To: Red Badger

I'm with you. Sometimes people just want to whine and blame someone else when there is a very easy solution. They want to make a political statement. They obviously knew the rule because they asked permission. I can understand why they have granted these rights to the sports bars and understand also why giving these rights to just anyone would hurt their business.


40 posted on 02/01/2007 7:58:03 AM PST by tiki
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 2 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 141-149 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson