No sanctuary for Super Bowl flock: Churches scramble to cancel parties after an NFL warning

Los Angeles Times ^ | 2/3/07 | Stephanie Simon

[nj26]

They were expecting a big crowd this Sunday at Farmland Friends Church in rural Indiana.

The sanctuary would be decked in blue and white streamers, the card tables groaning with sloppy-Joe fixings and bowls of chips. Best of all, the pews would be packed with scores of the faithful: men, women and children, shoulder to shoulder, hooting at a jumbo screen as their beloved Indianapolis Colts coasted — God willing — to victory over the Chicago Bears in Super Bowl XLI.

It was to have been a wholesome evening of fellowship and football.

And it would have been illegal.

Farmland Friends on Friday joined churches nationwide in abruptly canceling its Super Bowl party for fear of violating a federal copyright law that prohibits public venues from showing NFL games on big-screen TVs.

Sports bars are specifically exempted. Churches are not.

The law has been widely ignored for years. Churches routinely draw hundreds of fans to annual Super Bowl parties; some denominations openly use the events as tools for evangelism. The Christian magazine Sports Spectrum even markets a Super Bowl party kit for churches. This year, however, a celebration sponsored by Falls Creek Baptist Church in Indianapolis caught the attention of a National Football League attorney, Rachel L. Margolies.

She ordered the church to cancel its party and remove the trademarked Super Bowl name from its website. The Indianapolis Star picked up the story Thursday — and by Friday, pastors across Indiana and beyond were scrambling to yank down their Super Bowl banners and give away their trays of burgers.

[nj26]

Apparently, the NFL prefers its fans to be drunk...

[ItisaReligionofPeace]

It's about ratings.

[devane617]

Backfire time.

[xcamel]

you're late - the NFL lifted it's restriction yesterday under public pressure.

[JennysCool]

The NFL has rescinded that edict. I wonder when this was written?

[nj26]

Interesting development... was just reading today's papers... guess I am behind.

[Retired Chemist]

you're late - the NFL lifted it's restriction yesterday under public pressure

As long as no admission is charged

[Edit35]

Despite its reported "lifting" of the ban, this type of thing goes to the heart of why American society is drifting into the abyss.

When a church cant have fellowship around the great American passtime, football, they perhaps all the doomsayers are right.

[leadhead]

Restrictions, Schamicksions. The Super Bowl has been unwatchable the last few years with the increased timeouts for commercials and the deadly half time show. Regular season Sunday games I enjoy. The other days, the playoffs and the Super Bowl I'll read about in the paper.

[leadhead]

Restrictions, Schamicksions. The Super Bowl has been unwatchable the last few years with the increased timeouts for commercials and the deadly half time show. Regular season Sunday games I enjoy. The other days, the playoffs and the Super Bowl I'll read about in the paper.

[dandelion]

Link please re: NFL rescinding the church ban? I'm not finding it on Google news...

[leadhead]

Sorry for the Double Bubble

[pchuck]

The NFL looks at this as an intellectual property (trademark and copyright) issue. The actually send cease and desist letters to bars, churches, et al when they call things "Super Bowl" parties because they don't want the trademark diluted. When it comes to public showings, they claim that it is a copyright violation if admission is charged; however, I believe bars have a statutory exception. I'm not saying what the NFL is doing is right but I really don't think they are being anti-religious, I just think they are motivated by other things.

[supercat]

I looked at the copyright laws and there were restrictions on using satellite speakers attached to a television set, but no restriction on having a set (of whatever size) where people may see it in a venue that is open to the public with no admission charge. If a broadcast signal was strong enough that standalone receivers could provide acceptable audio, I would think that--regardless of what the NFL wants--it would be perfectly legal to show the game on a big screen television and have smaller receivers (either TV sets or TV-sound radios) among the crowd for people to listen to.

[A.A. Cunningham]

Church 'Super Bowl' festivities may go on

[TexanToTheCore]

A bad publicity move. Lost a lot of fans.

[right-wingin_It]

Actually, lifting a restriction two days before the game (if it's even true), and after much bad plubicity for them, its late on the NFL's part. And leadhead, your right...Many of us have a hard time watching pro-football anymore with all the damn TV timeouts. Just when you're about to get into a game there's a freaking commercial. Then you try again, and wham another commercial. Or when a teams on the verge of getting hot, they choke because of the TV-timeouts.

I played if for 10 years, I watched it for a few, but then it actually became a nuciance to follow. So I stick to college ball now. I'll go to superbpwl parties, but it aint for the football.

[dandelion]

So far, the only report of this is through World Net Daily - and they say themselves that it does not "rescind" anything, nor does it have any officials name attached to the document...

To quote from WND http://wnd.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=54081

---

Excerpt:


However, a written statement given to WND by the NFL late today made no mention of many of those restrictions. It was attributed only to "an NFL spokesman."

"The National Football League has absolutely no objection to churches and others hosting Super Bowl viewing parties as long as they do not charge admission and show the game on a television of the type commonly used at home.

"We are simply following copyright law and have done so with regard to any type of commercial establishment including hotels, theatres, museums, schools, arenas and others.

"This is nothing new. It is a matter of longstanding policy and the law.

"We have no rules that relate to viewing at home on any type of television."

NFL officials, after the statement was released, could not be reached by WND for any elaboration.

Earlier, they forwarded to WND their "Policy On The Public Performance Of Game Broadcasts," which expressed the league's "exclusive" ownership of the games and broadcasts.

The policy also describes the "homestyle exemption," which allows that in certain circumstances "conduct that otherwise violates the public performance right is deemed noninfringing. Specifically, 17 U.S.C. Paragraph 110(5)(A) provides that performance of a televised game will be excused if such performance is 'on a single receiving apparatus of a kind commonly used in private homes, unless (1) a direct charge is made to see or hear the transmission; or (2) the transmission thus received is further transmitted to the public.'"

The NFL policy notes that the league doesn't object to having games played on a single television receiver, "set up in a room or bar, provided payment is not a condition of entry."

End Excerpt

---

I'm not impressed. They are justifying themselves, not rescinding the ban or their threats SPECIFICALLY to churches...

[conservative in nyc]

It depends on whether a church is considered an establishment under the law. An establishment is usually a store or something of the like that is in business for a profit, unlike a church. If a church is an establishment, and the church is over 2000 square feet, then the game can't be shown on more than 4 TVs (1 each per room) no larger than 55 inches diagonal. If they are not, then the game can be shown on a TV of a kind commonly used in homes. In both cases, they can't charge a cover.

The NFL was overreaching. They seemed to want to limit churches to 1 TV of less than 55 inches. That's not what the law says - it's either allowed up to 4 TVs (1 per room) of up to 55 inches, or 1 TV of a size commonly used in homes, which theoretically could be larger.

The NFL's claim that their program couldn't be used as part of some broader church program that delivers a message simply has no basis in the copyright laws. If it did, then Algore could stop you, me and other FReepers from getting together (without charging a cover) to ridicule his crappy movie if it's ever shown on TV again. That's just ridiculous for something shown on the public airwaves.

[prov1813man]

This will probably all come down to the socio-political leanings of the harpy/lawyer who started all this. Likely not a good career move on her part.