YouTube Video Cited In Legal Opinion

Judge Terence Evans of the 7th US Circuit Court of Appeals took it upon himself this week to cite a YouTube video in an opinion written about a case involving a trademark dispute between companies. Over the “Stealth” label, apparently. I’m still not quite sure exactly what the argument was about.

The topic at hand isn’t what triggered my interest in the story. I neither watch nor follow nor take the slightest interest in the game of baseball. It’s the reference to a YouTube video (currently removed from view “due to a copyright claim by MLB Advanced Media”) by a fairly notable officer of the American legal system which had me take notice, though I must say its involvement in the case, at least as it is described by CNET blogger Declan McCullagh, is fairly minor. In short, Judge Evans refers to said video as a piece of background data.

The video is of a game played between the Kansas City Royals and the New York Yankees in 1983 and involving the disputed legality of a home run made by then Royals member George Brett due to the type of bat the player used.

Today, George Brett is part of Brett Brothers Sports International and was the defendant in the court case. Leo Stoller, owner of Central Manufacturing, was the plaintiff. Evans, speaking for a three-member panel of judges in his opinion, claimed Stoller “made a mockery” of the judicial processes over the “Stealth” dispute and decided against the plaintiff.

Going back to the video for a moment, it’s actually interesting to find that the clip was taken down at all. After reading that YouTube had been ordered to do so and after verifying that the video was indeed no longer viewable on the host site, I immediately wondered whether it’s inclusion (by way of the corresponding URL’s documentation) in an official opinion by a US appeals court judge should in fact guarantee it continued presence on the website, despite having been copyrighted by MLB Advanced Media. At the least, I figure the court should have the clip preserved in a database maintained by the justice system for the maintenance of the complete “public record”.

The key words there are “I figure”. As an individual almost completely ignorant of the legal system here in the US, I have not the slightest knowledge of what should be done. Only my own logic tells me anything cited within a judge’s official decision should be maintained as official record. It just makes sense to do so.

As the YouTube citing is unprecedented, however, it’s understandable to find a copyright owner make an effort to protect its copyright. (Though of course there’s the issue of exactly how much harm and how much good is done by keep a loose vs. tight lid on copyright in general in the current era.)

All in all, this episode is one for the books, though one I wish had a more noteworthy context. A sporting goods trademark dispute surely isn’t something most of you and the vast majority of the tech world on the whole will latch onto. Anywho, it is what it is. A YouTube video citing in an appeals court decision.