The ACC Grant of Rights Agreement, as Amended

[IthacaMatt]

Here it is for you all to study at your leisure.

 

[IthacaMatt]

And here is the 2016 amendment, extending the term out to 2036.

 

[SURules]

Interesting that each university is listed specifically. With FSU and Clemson both listed specifically and signed both occasions, they are specifically locked in. Good move by the attorneys.

 

[IthacaMatt]

Here it is for you all to study at your leisure.

Scattershot initial observations, as I'm waiting for my dinner to cool:

Right in Section 1(a), it says the grant of media rights persists for the duration of the term, regardless of whether the school remains part of the conference. (OOF!)

The Conference owns all your events that are subject to the ESPN agreement. This would mean, to me, that it includes so-called minor sports like softball, lacrosse, etc.

The Conference owns all copyrights in the works. Another OOF! The schools won't be able to repackage or delay broadcast or stream any of their content, because it all belongs to the league.

If a member school doesn't participate in the ACC for some sports (hi, there, ND), then the non-ACC conference content is not owned by the league.

The assignment of copyright is a big deal. Copyright includes the right to make derivative works - compilations, rebroadcasts, commemorative DVDs, etc. - as well as public performance rights.

There are substantial statutory damages available to the league for willful infringement - $200K per episode.

So let's say, for instance, if Florida State sold 50,000 DVDs of their undefeated season that led to this lawsuit, after they left the ACC, then the ACC could sue them for 50K x 200K in damages because they would be using video content that is owned by the ACC under this grant of rights. That is a lot of money for selling some swag.

Cable and satellite is also covered under copyright law, and requires the consent of the rights holder to exploit in those media. Same is probably true of streaming under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Edit: Actually, streaming copyright law was just updated in 2020.)

Section 6 states in plain language that the grant is irrevocable, whether or not a particular school remains in the conference. "We still own your games, and their revenue."

Furthermore in Sec. 6, when the schools make their reps and warranties to comply with the conditions of the contract, they have to acknowledge that they have the capacity to make this agreement, and that it won't violate any other agreements of these universities.

For State schools, this undermines government sovereignty type of arguments against use of state funds to pay a buy-out. "This doesn't violate any other agreement you may be party to, any law, statute, rule, regulation, court order" and so on.

In Section 7, the schools agree that they must provide "reasonable access" to ESPN to broadcast games. So, if someone wanted to leave the conference for a new deal with Fox (Big 10), ESPN would still get to broadcast the games, and the ACC would still own them.

There's no way out of this agreement. They didn't "over lawyer" it, and make it too long.

When you do that, it can introduce ambiguities, which give the other side subject matter to argue about in court.

Well done, ACC lawyers.

 

[PeteCalvin]

Scattershot initial observations, as I'm waiting for my dinner to cool:

Right in Section 1(a), it says the grant of media rights persists for the duration of the term, regardless of whether the school remains part of the conference. (OOF!)

The Conference owns all your events that are subject to the ESPN agreement. This would mean, to me, that it includes so-called minor sports like softball, lacrosse, etc.

The Conference owns all copyrights in the works. Another OOF! The schools won't be able to repackage or delay broadcast or stream any of their content, because it all belongs to the league.

If a member school doesn't participate in the ACC for some sports (hi, there, ND), then the non-ACC conference content is not owned by the league.

The assignment of copyright is a big deal. Copyright includes the right to make derivative works - compilations, rebroadcasts, commemorative DVDs, etc. - as well as public performance rights.

There are substantial statutory damages available to the league for willful infringement - $200K per episode.

So let's say, for instance, if Florida State sold 50,000 DVDs of their undefeated season that led to this lawsuit, after they left the ACC, then the ACC could sue them for 50K x 200K in damages because they would be using video content that is owned by the ACC under this grant of rights. That is a lot of money for selling some swag.

Cable and satellite is also covered under copyright law, and requires the consent of the rights holder to exploit in those media. Same is probably true of streaming under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Edit: Actually, streaming copyright law was just updated in 2020.)

Section 6 states in plain language that the grant is irrevocable, whether or not a particular school remains in the conference. "We still own your games, and their revenue."

Furthermore in Sec. 6, when the schools make their reps and warranties to comply with the conditions of the contract, they have to acknowledge that they have the capacity to make this agreement, and that it won't violate any other agreements of these universities.

For State schools, this undermines government sovereignty type of arguments against use of state funds to pay a buy-out. "This doesn't violate any other agreement you may be party to, any law, statute, rule, regulation, court order" and so on.

In Section 7, the schools agree that they must provide "reasonable access" to ESPN to broadcast games. So, if someone wanted to leave the conference for a new deal with Fox (Big 10), ESPN would still get to broadcast the games, and the ACC would still own them.

There's no way out of this agreement. They didn't "over lawyer" it, and make it too long.

When you do that, it can introduce ambiguities, which give the other side subject matter to argue about in court.

Well done, ACC lawyers.

Thank you for the Cliff’s Notes version!

 

[WoadBlue]

Scattershot initial observations, as I'm waiting for my dinner to cool:

Right in Section 1(a), it says the grant of media rights persists for the duration of the term, regardless of whether the school remains part of the conference. (OOF!)

The Conference owns all your events that are subject to the ESPN agreement. This would mean, to me, that it includes so-called minor sports like softball, lacrosse, etc.

The Conference owns all copyrights in the works. Another OOF! The schools won't be able to repackage or delay broadcast or stream any of their content, because it all belongs to the league.

If a member school doesn't participate in the ACC for some sports (hi, there, ND), then the non-ACC conference content is not owned by the league.

The assignment of copyright is a big deal. Copyright includes the right to make derivative works - compilations, rebroadcasts, commemorative DVDs, etc. - as well as public performance rights.

There are substantial statutory damages available to the league for willful infringement - $200K per episode.

So let's say, for instance, if Florida State sold 50,000 DVDs of their undefeated season that led to this lawsuit, after they left the ACC, then the ACC could sue them for 50K x 200K in damages because they would be using video content that is owned by the ACC under this grant of rights. That is a lot of money for selling some swag.

Cable and satellite is also covered under copyright law, and requires the consent of the rights holder to exploit in those media. Same is probably true of streaming under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Edit: Actually, streaming copyright law was just updated in 2020.)

Section 6 states in plain language that the grant is irrevocable, whether or not a particular school remains in the conference. "We still own your games, and their revenue."

Furthermore in Sec. 6, when the schools make their reps and warranties to comply with the conditions of the contract, they have to acknowledge that they have the capacity to make this agreement, and that it won't violate any other agreements of these universities.

For State schools, this undermines government sovereignty type of arguments against use of state funds to pay a buy-out. "This doesn't violate any other agreement you may be party to, any law, statute, rule, regulation, court order" and so on.

In Section 7, the schools agree that they must provide "reasonable access" to ESPN to broadcast games. So, if someone wanted to leave the conference for a new deal with Fox (Big 10), ESPN would still get to broadcast the games, and the ACC would still own them.

There's no way out of this agreement. They didn't "over lawyer" it, and make it too long.

When you do that, it can introduce ambiguities, which give the other side subject matter to argue about in court.

Well done, ACC lawyers.

Now a matter is how can ACC leadership persuade ESPN to stop its incessant slighting the ACC while endless praising the SEC? Another matter then is how can the ACC leadership secure additional revenue, enough to matter?

One thing we know is that ESPN gave. promise to the SEC when getting the SEC to sign all its rights to ESPN that ESPN would not sponsor any other conference network. Then ESPN finally agreed to honor its word to eh ACC to have an ACC network. That surely infuriated the SEC, which instead of taking out its frustrations with ESPn denied to make the ACC pay. ESPN would need to start downgrading the ACC in favor the SEC, even when games both ACC teams. The height of that came when FSU was kept out of the playoffs, with ESPN talking heads all defending that decision, many of them calling the ACC every kind of weak and worthless.

Now we need leadership that begins the process of surviving until we can leave ESPN and then get a better deal from a more honest broadcaster.

 

[StLouisCuse]

Thank you for sharing. Very Insightful

 

[IthacaMatt]

Now a matter is how can ACC leadership persuade ESPN to stop its incessant slighting the ACC while endless praising the SEC? Another matter then is how can the ACC leadership secure additional revenue, enough to matter?

One thing we know is that ESPN gave. promise to the SEC when getting the SEC to sign all its rights to ESPN that ESPN would not sponsor any other conference network. Then ESPN finally agreed to honor its word to eh ACC to have an ACC network. That surely infuriated the SEC, which instead of taking out its frustrations with ESPn denied to make the ACC pay. ESPN would need to start downgrading the ACC in favor the SEC, even when games both ACC teams. The height of that came when FSU was kept out of the playoffs, with ESPN talking heads all defending that decision, many of them calling the ACC every kind of weak and worthless.

Now we need leadership that begins the process of surviving until we can leave ESPN and then get a better deal from a more honest broadcaster.

I completely agree that ESPN has been undermining the ACC for years. If the ACC ever implodes, I would expect them to sue ESPN, because they will have had an awful lot to do with it.

 

[DoctorBombay]

Scattershot initial observations, as I'm waiting for my dinner to cool:

Right in Section 1(a), it says the grant of media rights persists for the duration of the term, regardless of whether the school remains part of the conference. (OOF!)

The Conference owns all your events that are subject to the ESPN agreement. This would mean, to me, that it includes so-called minor sports like softball, lacrosse, etc.

The Conference owns all copyrights in the works. Another OOF! The schools won't be able to repackage or delay broadcast or stream any of their content, because it all belongs to the league.

If a member school doesn't participate in the ACC for some sports (hi, there, ND), then the non-ACC conference content is not owned by the league.

The assignment of copyright is a big deal. Copyright includes the right to make derivative works - compilations, rebroadcasts, commemorative DVDs, etc. - as well as public performance rights.

There are substantial statutory damages available to the league for willful infringement - $200K per episode.

So let's say, for instance, if Florida State sold 50,000 DVDs of their undefeated season that led to this lawsuit, after they left the ACC, then the ACC could sue them for 50K x 200K in damages because they would be using video content that is owned by the ACC under this grant of rights. That is a lot of money for selling some swag.

Cable and satellite is also covered under copyright law, and requires the consent of the rights holder to exploit in those media. Same is probably true of streaming under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Edit: Actually, streaming copyright law was just updated in 2020.)

Section 6 states in plain language that the grant is irrevocable, whether or not a particular school remains in the conference. "We still own your games, and their revenue."

Furthermore in Sec. 6, when the schools make their reps and warranties to comply with the conditions of the contract, they have to acknowledge that they have the capacity to make this agreement, and that it won't violate any other agreements of these universities.

For State schools, this undermines government sovereignty type of arguments against use of state funds to pay a buy-out. "This doesn't violate any other agreement you may be party to, any law, statute, rule, regulation, court order" and so on.

In Section 7, the schools agree that they must provide "reasonable access" to ESPN to broadcast games. So, if someone wanted to leave the conference for a new deal with Fox (Big 10), ESPN would still get to broadcast the games, and the ACC would still own them.

There's no way out of this agreement. They didn't "over lawyer" it, and make it too long.

When you do that, it can introduce ambiguities, which give the other side subject matter to argue about in court.

Well done, ACC lawyers.

Thank you, and well done.

 

[rocklloyd]

I only skimmed document. does the contract “end” in 2027? I scanned for references to term and only saw 2027.

 

[HtownOrange]

I only skimmed document. does the contract “end” in 2027? I scanned for references to term and only saw 2027.

The 2016 amendment extends the term to "June 30, 2036." I did not see a way out for ESPN to cancel the deal in 2027, the original termination date. The 2016 Amendment takes precedence, this FSU's blathering about ESPN having a way out in 2027 was fraudulent as it appears to have been an intentional obfuscation of the facts. I am sure ESPN respectfully disagrees with Alford on his interpretation.

I need to read this later for a closer look but the extension seems to lock down Clemson and FSU until 2036. This probably why the SEC and B1G are refusing any assistance, it is not worth their trouble. Recall that the SEC refused to assist UT and OU in a legal battle, the invite was open but they had to figure their own way out or wait until their deal ran out. Likewise, the B1G did the same for USC and UCLA.

FSU should start mending fences fairly soon. They should start by firing Alford.

 

[richmondcuse03]

The 2016 amendment extends the term to "June 30, 2036." I did not see a way out for ESPN to cancel the deal in 2027, the original termination date. The 2016 Amendment takes precedence, this FSU's blathering about ESPN having a way out in 2027 was fraudulent as it appears to have been an intentional obfuscation of the facts. I am sure ESPN respectfully disagrees with Alford on his interpretation.

I need to read this later for a closer look but the extension seems to lock down Clemson and FSU until 2036. This probably why the SEC and B1G are refusing any assistance, it is not worth their trouble. Recall that the SEC refused to assist UT and OU in a legal battle, the invite was open but they had to figure their own way out or wait until their deal ran out. Likewise, the B1G did the same for USC and UCLA.

FSU should start mending fences fairly soon. They should start by firing Alford.

That would be a way for FSU to mend fences. The folks at SU have spoken about strength in GOR since this all began so am glad to see the commissioner finally taking a more aggressive posture publicly. They need to demonstrate how much strength they have. This is obviously more for optics but it’s important since the lawsuit was more or less a last ditch effort to force a settlement. Keep reinforcing that FSU is not getting that.

 

[rocklloyd]

The 2016 amendment extends the term to "June 30, 2036." I did not see a way out for ESPN to cancel the deal in 2027, the original termination date. The 2016 Amendment takes precedence, this FSU's blathering about ESPN having a way out in 2027 was fraudulent as it appears to have been an intentional obfuscation of the facts. I am sure ESPN respectfully disagrees with Alford on his interpretation.

I need to read this later for a closer look but the extension seems to lock down Clemson and FSU until 2036. This probably why the SEC and B1G are refusing any assistance, it is not worth their trouble. Recall that the SEC refused to assist UT and OU in a legal battle, the invite was open but they had to figure their own way out or wait until their deal ran out. Likewise, the B1G did the same for USC and UCLA.

FSU should start mending fences fairly soon. They should start by firing Alford.

thank you I read over the amendment. I see the references to 2036 now.

 

[Chip]

Scattershot initial observations, as I'm waiting for my dinner to cool:

Right in Section 1(a), it says the grant of media rights persists for the duration of the term, regardless of whether the school remains part of the conference. (OOF!)

The Conference owns all your events that are subject to the ESPN agreement. This would mean, to me, that it includes so-called minor sports like softball, lacrosse, etc.

The Conference owns all copyrights in the works. Another OOF! The schools won't be able to repackage or delay broadcast or stream any of their content, because it all belongs to the league.

If a member school doesn't participate in the ACC for some sports (hi, there, ND), then the non-ACC conference content is not owned by the league.

The assignment of copyright is a big deal. Copyright includes the right to make derivative works - compilations, rebroadcasts, commemorative DVDs, etc. - as well as public performance rights.

There are substantial statutory damages available to the league for willful infringement - $200K per episode.

So let's say, for instance, if Florida State sold 50,000 DVDs of their undefeated season that led to this lawsuit, after they left the ACC, then the ACC could sue them for 50K x 200K in damages because they would be using video content that is owned by the ACC under this grant of rights. That is a lot of money for selling some swag.

Cable and satellite is also covered under copyright law, and requires the consent of the rights holder to exploit in those media. Same is probably true of streaming under the Digital Millenium Copyright Act. (Edit: Actually, streaming copyright law was just updated in 2020.)

Section 6 states in plain language that the grant is irrevocable, whether or not a particular school remains in the conference. "We still own your games, and their revenue."

Furthermore in Sec. 6, when the schools make their reps and warranties to comply with the conditions of the contract, they have to acknowledge that they have the capacity to make this agreement, and that it won't violate any other agreements of these universities.

For State schools, this undermines government sovereignty type of arguments against use of state funds to pay a buy-out. "This doesn't violate any other agreement you may be party to, any law, statute, rule, regulation, court order" and so on.

In Section 7, the schools agree that they must provide "reasonable access" to ESPN to broadcast games. So, if someone wanted to leave the conference for a new deal with Fox (Big 10), ESPN would still get to broadcast the games, and the ACC would still own them.

There's no way out of this agreement. They didn't "over lawyer" it, and make it too long.

When you do that, it can introduce ambiguities, which give the other side subject matter to argue about in court.

Well done, ACC lawyers.

Guessing your dinner ended up pretty cold.