It didnât take long for the new documentary detailing the career of Michael Bisping to catch the attention of the UFC.
The documentary, simply titled Bisping: The Michael Bisping Story, was released in March and features contributions from a number of notable MMA figures such as Joe Rogan, Georges St-Pierre, and Tito Ortiz. âThe Countâ also serves as an executive producer for the film.
According to the report from Sportico, the UFC filed a copyright infringement complaint on Thursday, August 18 in a Los Angeles court due to the documentaryâs use of intellectual property copyrighted by the UFC.
The UFCâs search of the documentaryâs content appears to have been quite thorough, as the complaint contends that 24 different copyrighted works make up around 19 minutes of the filmâs total runtime.
UFC Never Contacted About The Film
Canadian film production company Score G Productions was named as the primary defendant, although several other companies were included in the complaint.
The UFC claims to have only been made aware of the documentary âbecause Bisping himself . . . reached out to a producer contact at the UFC.â The contact subsequently âencouraged Bisping to have Score G contact UFC to discuss licensing,â which apparently never occurred.
Itâs no secret that the UFC are fiercely protective of their content, so it comes as little surprise the promotion reacted so strongly if in fact they were not contacted regarding the documentary. Although the complaint does acknowledge the possible argument of fair use, it also makes a broad claim regarding the precedent that would be set.
Bisping was inducted into the UFC Hall of Fame in 2019. (Jeff Bottari/Zuffa LLC)
âIf Bisping is fair use, then any network, studio or producer could make a documentary about UFC, and devote most of the documentary to simply rebroadcasting UFC fights, interviews, and the likeâall without permission from UFC.â
âThe Countâ joined the UFC in 2006 after winning the third season of The Ultimate Fighter. He went on to spend more than 10 years with the promotion and made history in 2016 by becoming the first UFC champion from the UK.
Bisping held the distinction of being the UKâs only UFC champion until just recently. Leon Edwards dethroned longtime welterweight champion Kamaru Usman with a head kick at UFC 278 to become the second fighter from the UK to hold a UFC belt.
The UFCâs ruthless approach to IP disputes often matches the brutality seen in the Octagon. UFC chief Dana White is famous for his rants against streaming pirates but this week documentary makers are feeling the heat. Their film features former UFC champion Michael Bisping and lots of unlicensed UFC action clips. Fair use, perhaps? Donât even try it, UFC warns.
The UFCâs reputation as the worldâs leading mixed martial arts promotion is the result of almost three decades of hard work and unwavering dedication to combat sports.
One way or another, grudgingly or not, every MMA fan owes the UFC a debt of gratitude. But thereâs a corporate side to the UFC thatâs much less palatable and, in many cases, highlights the companyâs absolute reliance on the exploitation of IP rights.
Most professional MMA fighters want to fight in the UFC but complaints over poor pay are increasingly common. Contracts that ban fighters from being independently and visibly sponsored at the most lucrative times are another point of contention. Add in training camp bills and other expenses, some fighters say they barely break even. The UFC claims that fighters always get the deal they signed up for, but the balance of power is rarely equal.
If fighters underperform, theyâre out, but the contacts they sign grant company-related image rights to the UFC until the world comes to an end â literally. If fighters do well under contract but want to leave or make money in another sport, people not called McGregor neednât apply. Whatever happens, the UFC can put any fighter in a videogame 5,000 years from now and still have permission to use their likeness, complete with licensed tattoos.
The reasoning behind these perpetual licenses goes beyond the UFCâs desire to grab most of the money. The UFC doesnât employ any fighters, theyâre technically independent contractors, so as far as fight-capable flesh-and-blood is concerned, the UFC has no obvious assets. The UFC doesnât manufacture anything either, at least not in the traditional sense.
What the UFC does have is lots of smart executives, an extraordinarily valuable brand, equally lucrative trademarks, and an extensive copyright-protected back catalog that documents the history of MMA in the United States and beyond. The library continues to grow every week with new and exclusive content, meaning that thereâs always something fresh to broadcast or make available on license.
The bottom line is that without its intellectual property, the UFC wouldnât even be called that anymore. Thatâs why a company who used UFC footage without a license has prompted a new big-money copyright lawsuit.
Bisping: The Michael Bisping Story
Born in Manchester, England, Michael Bisping is a former UFC Middleweight Champion. He was rightfully inducted into the UFCâs Hall of Fame in 2019 and like many fighters has interesting tales to tell. At this very moment the documentary âBisping: The Michael Bisping Storyâ is available to stream on dozens of platforms but despite UFC boss Dana White actually being in it, the MMA promoter is no supporter.
In a copyright infringement complaint filed at a California district court this week, Zuffa LLC (d/b/a UFC) names Canadian company 2107697 Alberta Ltd (d/b/a Score G Productions), Canadian Adam Scorgie, Electric Panda Entertainment, and Does 1 through 10 as defendants.
UFC says it has 675 million fans who enjoy 40 UFC events every year. UFC programming is broadcast in 175 countries and territories to 1.1 billion households in 40 languages, via the internet, cable, and satellite. UFCâs VOD platform, UFC Fight Pass, offers thousands of fights, events, and original content all over the world. If people want access to content, UFC will license it to them.
âGiven that UFCâs business depends in large part on its intellectual property and, more specifically, the copyrights it holds, it is not surprising that UFC licenses fight clips â including, of particular relevance here, âfight finishes,â i.e., the final few seconds before the knockout, technical knockout, submission, etc,â the UFC complaint reads.
âAnd, indeed, many customers, including other filmmakers, have licensed UFCâs clips through this channel. But not Score G. Unable to make a compelling presentation about Michael Bisping on its own, Score G decided to exploit UFCâs intellectual property without permission or obtaining a license for its use.â
The complaint alleges that 19 minutes of the Bisping documentary is UFC fight footage, culled from 24 different UFC registered copyright works and displayed via 160 short clips. The UFC describes the extent of the unlicensed use as âastoundingâ.
Bisping Told UFC About the Documentary
Bisping still commentates for the UFC, so when he mentioned the documentary to a UFC producer, the former champion was encouraged to have Score G contact the UFC to discuss licensing. That didnât happen.
âScore G never even approached UFC to let UFC know what it was doing. Evidently, Score G believes that it did not need to license the Broadcasts from UFC because the film is a documentary,â the UFCâs complaint reads.
Whether a fair use conversation actually took place is unclear, but the UFC says the strategy wonât work here. Documentary makers regularly license UFC content, and the UFC licenses content for use in its own broadcasts too.
â[I]f Bisping is fair use, then any network, studio or producer could make a documentary about UFC, and devote most of the documentary to simply rebroadcasting UFC fights, interviews, and the like â all without permission from UFC,â the company warns.
The documentary is available digitally for rent or purchase on Amazon, DirecTV, iTunes, Microsoft, Google Play, Redbox, Spectrum, Vudu/Fandango, and YouTube. There are also plans to air the documentary on TV and distribute via other streaming platforms. The UFC is not thrilled about that given the circumstances.
UFC is Not Suing Bisping Himself
The complaint names Michael Bisping as a producer but the UFC accuses him of nothing. As for the other defendants, they all stand accused of copyright infringement or contributory copyright infringement, depending on which parties created the documentary and/or financed it.
The UFC lists almost two dozen copyrighted UFC events as sources for the clips in the documentary, describing the defendantsâ infringement as willful. For each work the UFC demands maximum statutory damages of $150,000.
The UFC supplements these infringement claims with corresponding claims for violations of the DMCAâs anti-circumvention provisions. The clips used in the documentary are reportedly high quality, so thereâs a suspicion the documentary makers may have ripped them from Fight Pass or another source. Since all UFC content is protected, UFC believes that violations of 17 U.S.C. § 1201 must have taken place.
The UFC also seeks an injunction to prevent further infringement but any suspension of the documentary could also hurt Bisping, a loyal, long-term business partner.
As for arguments for and against fair use, itâs much too early to say, but a loss could potentially cause damage to the wider UFC licensing business. The company would never risk that so itâs probably confident that an early win by submission is a foregone conclusion.
The UFC complaint can be found here (pdf)
So where can I get this before Dana shuts it down?
Sorry but the doc shouldve been sued because it was so bad. I love Bisping but I paid for it and watched with my brothers and we couldnât get to the end. So contrived and cheesy
Good to know!
Other ppl enjoyed it so donât necessarily avoid because of me
âIâm a fucking punk ass bitchâ
- Dana White
Does seem a bit harsh for a global powerhouse like the UFC to sue a 2-bit documentary film maker that ultimately promoted them and their ex fighter
The UFC would sacrifice an entire African village if it meant they got one more ppv sale.
Donât listen to the goof saying the documentary was bad. It was excellent! Really good
I will take all opinions.
I couldnât watch it if it was too contrived and cheesy but that wonât stop me from checking it out to see for myself!
McTTT
The producer of this doc frankly is an absolute moron if he thought the UFC would allow him to use their content without permission or compensation. Amateur hour on his part.
YeahâŚNot necessarily a fan of the move, but I understand the reason why they had to do it from their business standpoint. If they gave way to that production company even in the slightest way, it opens the door for everybody to use that angle and claim fair use etc. The company should have just contacted the UFC like Bisping told them toâŚatleast Bisping himself wasnât sued by the UFC
Hard to argue , thats why there is (R)