Last Thursday, UFC filed a copyright infringement lawsuit against Score G Productions and other companies in a federal court in Los Angeles over improper film use. The movie Bisping, which came out in March and whose executive producer is the 43-year-old former UFC fighter, follows his life. Bisping competed from 2004 to 2017, winning the UFC (Ultimate Fighting Championship) Middleweight and Cage Rage Light Heavyweight titles along the way. In 2019, he was inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame.
According to the UFC's lawsuit, it was not until Bisping himself "reached out to a producer contact at UFC" that UFC was made aware of the documentary.
The UFC worker then "encouraged Bisping to have Score G get in touch with UFC to talk about licencing.
That interaction never happened.
The amount of stolen intellectual property in Bisping, according to UFC, "is astounding." A total of 24 copyrighted compositions, or around 19 minutes of the 109-minute film, are dispersed throughout 160 segments or sequences. The UFC copyrighted works are directly used in around a sixth of the movie.
The UFC claims that Bisping copies "significant portions" of some of its most well-known fights, including scenes from UFC 194, in which Conor McGregor defeated Jose Aldo in only 13 seconds, and UFC 100, in which Bisping was knocked out by Dan Henderson.
UFC maintains that Score G (along with other defendants) flagrantly violated audiovisual works that UFC had filed for protection with the U.S. Copyright Office. The league asks for compensation for losses in licencing payments and decreased value of intellectual works, among other evils.
Additionally, it requests an injunction against Score G using those works and "circumventing technological prevention measures."
Score G's lawyers will respond to the complaint and make an effort to refute the allegations in the upcoming weeks. In its case, UFC concedes a possible defence: fair use, which recognises that some forms of copying are acceptable.
Fair use "really depends on the facts." Fair use is assessed in accordance with the US Copyright Act by weighing a number of variables.
The use's intent and nature are one factor.
Since Bisping is being marketed, it is "obviously commercial," which benefits UFC. He does, however, warn that if transformative usage is determined by the court to have occurred, Score G would benefit.
The promotion of Bisping "as a biography of Michael Bisping" "seems to be rather different from UFC's original use of the fight films, which was supposed to amuse UFC fans during the live events or afterwards by allowing fans to replay the fights," says one critic.
The degree of copying is important; the worse it is for Score G, the more copying there is. The fact that 17% of the movie contains plagiarised material is "a fairly significant amount. But without UFC's footage, it would be practically impossible to recount Bisping's UFC history. The significance of the videos in connection to the bouts is also crucial. The more significant elements that are illustrated, the more difficult it would be for Score G to prove fair usage.
The analysis is also influenced by market factors. We should now concentrate on the UFC's assertion that Score G violated a tradition of licencing bouts and that other documentary filmmakers frequently request authorization. Pretrial information that might support or contradict those descriptions. The Ninth Circuit is advantageous for UFC since it has established precedent in Elvis Presley Enterprises, Inc. v. Passport Video about fair use in documentary films. In the Presley case, the court took a limited view of fair use and, positively for UFC, stressed the significance of financial advantage as a justification for rejecting fair use.
The potential application of fair usage is vigorously contested by UFC. According to the league, permitting the use of protected content would result in perverse incentives.
According to the complaint, "if Bisping is fair use," any network, studio, or producer may create a documentary about the UFC and spend the majority of the documentary simply rebroadcasting UFC fights, interviews, and similar content without receiving consent from the UFC.
The case occurs at a time when sports documentaries are becoming increasingly popular, with the athlete occasionally having a significant influence on the programmes' plot lines.
UFC v. Score G is being heard by Judge Gary Klausner, who presided over the Equal Pay Act and Civil Rights Act dispute between USWNT players and U.S. Soccer.
Comments