Tweet
By Joan Biskupic, USA TODAY
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday let a fantasy sports league operator continue using baseball statistics and players' names without paying licensing fees, in a closely watched case at the heart of the $1.5 billion fantasy sports industry.
With no comment or recorded vote, the justices refused to intervene in a dispute between a St. Louis company and Major League Baseball. The court's action leaves intact a 2007 U.S. appeals court decision that said the First Amendment supersedes state "rights of publicity" law that normally lets sports figures and celebrities control how their names and identities are used.
New York-based attorney Glenn Colton, who filed briefs on behalf of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association at the lower court level, hailed the result as a "victory for First Amendment freedoms, fantasy sports businesses and the millions of fantasy sports players nationwide."
Because the justices did not take up the merits of the case, their action sets no national precedent. Yet it could lead more fantasy league operators to forgo licensing deals. Fantasy players, Colton said, should benefit by the increased competition from a greater number of providers and games.
GAME ON! BLOG: The issues at stake
In its decision last October laced with regard for Americans' fascination with "the national pastime," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit emphasized that the statistics are already widely distributed and enthusiastically collected.
"The information used in CBC's fantasy baseball games is all readily available in the public domain," the appeals court wrote, "and it would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone."
In asking the high court to take the appeal, the Major League Baseball Players Association and MLB, which offers fantasy games at mlb.com, asserted that the 8th Circuit ruling "disrupted ... business and reliance interests in the billions of dollars" and sowed confusion among federal courts over how to weigh free speech rights against players' publicity interests.
They stressed the interest sports figures have protecting their identities from commercial exploitation.
"Obviously, we're disappointed. We think the law in this area is in need of clarification. We thought this was the time to do it," Steve Fehr?, lawyer for the players association, said Monday.
CBC Distribution & Marketing had a licensing deal with the players union from 1995-2004. In 2005, the two sides failed to reach an agreement, and CBC sued the union and MLB to try to enforce its right to use the information without license.
In urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case, CBC lawyers argued that the appeals struck the right balance between First Amendment rights and baseball's publicity interests. Rudolph Telscher, the company's lawyer, on Monday countered MLB arguments about the sweep of the lower court decision, saying "it's not a case that alters the landscape of licensing agreements."
Telscher said the case differed from the usual celebrity publicity dispute because the information in the case already was widely disseminated through newspapers and other news media. (USA TODAY previously had a business arrangement with CBC Distribution. That ended in 2005, Telscher said.)
The NFL Players Association had submitted a brief on the side of the baseball players urguing the court to take the case. The NFL said the lower court decision threatened its ability to license its players' identities for commercial purposes.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...t_N.htm?csp=34
WASHINGTON — The Supreme Court on Monday let a fantasy sports league operator continue using baseball statistics and players' names without paying licensing fees, in a closely watched case at the heart of the $1.5 billion fantasy sports industry.
With no comment or recorded vote, the justices refused to intervene in a dispute between a St. Louis company and Major League Baseball. The court's action leaves intact a 2007 U.S. appeals court decision that said the First Amendment supersedes state "rights of publicity" law that normally lets sports figures and celebrities control how their names and identities are used.
New York-based attorney Glenn Colton, who filed briefs on behalf of the Fantasy Sports Trade Association at the lower court level, hailed the result as a "victory for First Amendment freedoms, fantasy sports businesses and the millions of fantasy sports players nationwide."
Because the justices did not take up the merits of the case, their action sets no national precedent. Yet it could lead more fantasy league operators to forgo licensing deals. Fantasy players, Colton said, should benefit by the increased competition from a greater number of providers and games.
GAME ON! BLOG: The issues at stake
In its decision last October laced with regard for Americans' fascination with "the national pastime," the U.S. Court of Appeals for the 8th Circuit emphasized that the statistics are already widely distributed and enthusiastically collected.
"The information used in CBC's fantasy baseball games is all readily available in the public domain," the appeals court wrote, "and it would be strange law that a person would not have a First Amendment right to use information that is available to everyone."
In asking the high court to take the appeal, the Major League Baseball Players Association and MLB, which offers fantasy games at mlb.com, asserted that the 8th Circuit ruling "disrupted ... business and reliance interests in the billions of dollars" and sowed confusion among federal courts over how to weigh free speech rights against players' publicity interests.
They stressed the interest sports figures have protecting their identities from commercial exploitation.
"Obviously, we're disappointed. We think the law in this area is in need of clarification. We thought this was the time to do it," Steve Fehr?, lawyer for the players association, said Monday.
CBC Distribution & Marketing had a licensing deal with the players union from 1995-2004. In 2005, the two sides failed to reach an agreement, and CBC sued the union and MLB to try to enforce its right to use the information without license.
In urging the Supreme Court not to take up the case, CBC lawyers argued that the appeals struck the right balance between First Amendment rights and baseball's publicity interests. Rudolph Telscher, the company's lawyer, on Monday countered MLB arguments about the sweep of the lower court decision, saying "it's not a case that alters the landscape of licensing agreements."
Telscher said the case differed from the usual celebrity publicity dispute because the information in the case already was widely disseminated through newspapers and other news media. (USA TODAY previously had a business arrangement with CBC Distribution. That ended in 2005, Telscher said.)
The NFL Players Association had submitted a brief on the side of the baseball players urguing the court to take the case. The NFL said the lower court decision threatened its ability to license its players' identities for commercial purposes.
http://www.usatoday.com/sports/baseb...t_N.htm?csp=34