Chris Speilman sues Ohio State & IMG

[saevel25]

9 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

At any rate let's say Spielman succeeds,  all that happens is the University puts in a line or two in a student athlete agreement saying that the University has the rights to image likeness use.  Nothing changes.   No sign no scholarship.  

Then all that other schools need to do is not put that in and they have a competitive advantage in getting high level recruits. You think Ohio State will put that in their agreement and let a school like Alabama not? 

This trial is about for players after they played at the college. Chris doesn't think it is right that the college get the use the players name, likeness, ect.. for eternity after college. This trial can lead to current players wanting the same thing. If the court rules that schools do not have free reign to use a players likeness after they played at the college, then there is very little difference between that and for current students. 

 

[iacas]

25 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

Honda sponsored the banners.  The banners are decorations.  There is nothing on the banner implying those players drive or ride Hondas or endorse the Honda brand.  Honda is not being sued.

The bold is wrong and implies that you have an incredibly naive view of the law and/or how advertising works.

25 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

At any rate let's say Spielman succeeds,  all that happens is the University puts in a line or two in a student athlete agreement saying that the University has the rights to image likeness use.  Nothing changes.   No sign no scholarship.

And an athlete who is thinking about an NFL career may sign with a more player-friendly and financially friendly school instead of going to Ohio State.

I've worked at jobs over other jobs because some jobs claimed ownership of everything I created while in their employ, even if created on my own time at my own home, while the job I took did not, even though the job that had that clause paid more.

25 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

To me it's kinda like some CEO going back to their high school and asking for money because their image was used in a yearbook that the school made money on without sharing the profit.  It's greed driven.

No, the CEO is not being used to promote a current activity of the high school or one of the high school's sponsors.

I'm not sure why you fail to understand the difference. It's very simple.

The lawsuit is about what happens to the player's likeness (and the ownership thereof) after he leaves the college. (I think.)

[Jack Watson]

2 hours ago, iacas said:

 

2 hours ago, Jack Watson said:

Honda sponsored the banners.  The banners are decorations.  There is nothing on the banner implying those players drive or ride Hondas or endorse the Honda brand.  Honda is not being sued.

The bold is wrong and implies that you have an incredibly naive view of the law and/or how advertising works.

 

Paragraph b...

https://www.ftc.gov/sites/default/files/attachments/press-releases/ftc-publishes-final-guides-governing-endorsements-testimonials/091005revisedendorsementguides.pdf

The banner has an image of Speilman in Ohio State uniform playing football.

The bottom of the banner says Honda.  

The image is not Speilman using any Honda product.  That would be an endorsement since it would seem to reflect Speilmans experience with a product.

Theres no written message on the banner.  Paragraph b says for something to be an endorsement consumers must be likely to believe that the (banner in this case) reflects the view or experience of the person in the image.  The experience shown in the banner is football.

Nothing in it implies that Speilman likes Honda.  My opinion is that a good attorney could make a strong argument that the banner does not constitute an endorsement of any sort.

My first thought looking at the banner is that Honda donated it,  not that Speilman is endorsing Honda.

Edited August 5, 2017 by Jack Watson

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

Nothing in it implies that Speilman likes Honda.

I disagree, and proximity in advertising has been shown (and court cases have been won) to lead consumers to believe the two things are related.

Stop with the nested quotes, too, please. Just hit the quote button.

[Pretzel]

On 8/5/2017 at 11:00 AM, Jack Watson said:

Theres no written message on the banner.  Paragraph b says for something to be an endorsement consumers must be likely to believe that the (banner in this case) reflects the view or experience of the person in the image.  The experience shown in the banner is football.

You're right. If I saw a banner with a famous person on it, and a brand name on the SAME banner, I would in no way be likely to think that the brand name is endorsed by the person printed, quite literally, on the same banner.

Come on, you can't argue that. If the brand name is on the same banner, the banner is an advertisement for Honda using the likeness of the player. If it were a separate banner below the first there wouldn't be a problem (or at least it wouldn't be as large), but that's not the case.

It's like saying the below picture (using your avatar as an example) is not an advertisement for a certain service:

Spoiler

Regardless of whether or not it's intended to be an ad, the average consumer would most certainly believe it is an ad.

 

Edited August 8, 2017 by Pretzel

[Jack Watson]

@Pretzel

I have no idea if the link I posted is correct law.  I think though that what I posted in terms of the letter of the law as written that I might have a strong point.  It's all about how the law is worded.

To me from a common sense standpoint I think context plays into it also.  If the banner were in 15 Honda dealerships in Ohio that's one thing but in the stadium as a historical tribute is another.  That's just my common sense opinion.

Edited August 9, 2017 by Jack Watson

[saevel25]

2 minutes ago, Jack Watson said:

 

To me from a common sense standpoint I think context plays into it also.  If the banner were in 15 Honda dealerships in Ohio that's one thing but in the stadium as a historical tribute is another.  That's just my common sense opinion.

Which matters for nothing when considering the actual interpretation of the law.

[iacas]

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

I have no idea if the link I posted is correct law.  I think though that according to what I posted in terms of the letter of the law as written that I might have a strong point.  It's all about how the law is worded.

I don't think your case is strong at all.

On 8/5/2017 at 1:00 PM, Jack Watson said:

Paragraph b says for something to be an endorsement consumers must be likely to believe that the (banner in this case) reflects the view or experience of the person in the image.

I think it does, clearly, easily, and obviously.

1 minute ago, Jack Watson said:

To me from a common sense standpoint I think context plays into it also.  If the banner were in 15 Honda dealerships in Ohio that's one thing but in the stadium as a historical tribute is another.  That's just my common sense opinion.

And my common sense opinion is that the image @Pretzel posted above would be seen as an endorsement by you of PornHub.

And the law has been pretty clear on this: proximity is a strong indication of endorsement.

[Zekez]

On 8/2/2017 at 3:17 PM, saevel25 said:

https://www.elevenwarriors.com/ohio-state-football/2017/07/83547/chris-spielman-on-ohio-state-lawsuit-its-the-right-thing-to-do

This is a bit old, but it seems like the issue of paying college players is coming to a tipping point.

If anyone knows anything about Chris Spielman, he is not doing this for his own image. He believes that players should have control of their likeness after they leave college football and be compensated for it. You also have Archie Griffin who is named as a plaintiff as well. Archie has basically been the ambassador for Ohio State Football for over 35 years. This guy bleeds scarlet and gray. He would not sign his name to this if he didn't think it was a cause worth fighting.

I think this is just a stepping stone for the big issue of college athletes being paid.

I personally, think that they can make it work. Maybe the way to do this is with how Univ. Florida has their athletic department. The Florida Gator's Athletic department is actually a separate entity from the school. It's classified as a non-profit corporation. All the revenues from their sports stay inside the this corporation to improve the athletic department. The main issue is Title-IX. No matter what, this will be a big blow to college sports. This is because the sports are linked to a public college.

If I had to guess, the schools can create a corporation like Florida Athletics. I can see it going this route because they can escape Title-IX if they are a private institution and receive no federal funding. They can then provide the students with a private interest free loan, or partial loan. They can also provide the students with housing assistance. They can also pay the athletes.

I know people will say, "The athletes get paid, they get a free tuition." Here is what I say to that.

Student A: Full ride scholarship for academics. They get a part time job or full time job. They are able to study, and get some side money.
Student B: Full ride football athletic scholarship. They are required to spend upwards of 40 hours a week practicing and preparing for their games. They get no money for it.

Why should Student A be able to work a side job and make money when Student B is working a side job for the school and not getting paid?

 

Because they are higher EDUCATION institutions.  Not minor league sports institutions.    Those on athletic scholarships should be damn happy that they get a FREE ride for athletics at a place of learning.

[iacas]

10 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Because they are higher EDUCATION institutions.  Not minor league sports institutions.    Those on athletic scholarships should be damn happy that they get a FREE ride for athletics at a place of learning.

That's just what the NCAA would like you to think.

And for many, that kind of stuff is still true.

But the "education" many of these athletes get, particularly the "stars," isn't worth much.

Skip to 7:05 or so and the "paper classes" that players take.

[klineka]

13 minutes ago, Zekez said:

Because they are higher EDUCATION institutions.  Not minor league sports institutions.    Those on athletic scholarships should be damn happy that they get a FREE ride for athletics at a place of learning.

Just seems a bit odd that these EDUCATION institutions like Ohio State can make $35 million per year from football alone but the players cant make money off their own name?? 

[saevel25]

1 hour ago, Zekez said:

Because they are higher EDUCATION institutions.  

So what?

Again, why do those on Academic Scholarship get to make money at any sort of side job? Some might even have jobs like a Youtube Channel, maybe they do modeling work. They are making money off their image. Yet an NCAA athlete can't make money off their image? Both are receiving a scholarship. Both are getting paid to go to school.

1 hour ago, Zekez said:

Not minor league sports institutions.

Really? Is that why Maurice Clarrett was denied the opportunity to go to the NFL draft in his sophomore year instead of his junior year?

The argument that this is for the safety of the player is BS. If some skinny WR or RB wanted to try out, the NFL would shoot them down. They know what it takes to make it in the NFL. It has nothing to do with safety. It's because three years of college football is their minor leagues. The NFL teams do not want to spend money on opening up minor league institutions when they have colleges doing the work for them.

 

[iacas]

1 minute ago, saevel25 said:

Again, why do those on Academic Scholarship get to make money at any sort of side job?

That is one of the weaker parts of your argument, @saevel25. I'd drop it. I'm not even sure it's valid anymore. (Though I don't know much about Divisions I and II as I'm just DIII.)

[klineka]

26 minutes ago, saevel25 said:

So what?Again, why do those on Academic Scholarship get to make money at any sort of side job? Some might even have jobs like a Youtube Channel, maybe they do modeling work. They are making money off their image. Yet an NCAA athlete can't make money off their image? Both are receiving a scholarship. Both are getting paid to go to school.

Perfect example of this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/sports/ncaafootball/central-florida-de-la-haye-youtube.html

I think its messed up that he has to choose between having his youtube channel or remaining eligible to play football.

I'm not that familiar with YouTube as a business, but couldnt he always just turn the monetization off on his channel until he is done being a student athlete?

[Pretzel]

1 hour ago, klineka said:

Perfect example of this https://www.nytimes.com/2017/06/14/sports/ncaafootball/central-florida-de-la-haye-youtube.html

I think its messed up that he has to choose between having his youtube channel or remaining eligible to play football.

I'm not that familiar with YouTube as a business, but couldnt he always just turn the monetization off on his channel until he is done being a student athlete?

But why the hell should he have to turn monetization off? He has every right to produce and profit from his own content, the same as any other student at the university does. 

[klineka]

1 minute ago, Pretzel said:

But why the hell should he have to turn monetization off? He has every right to produce and profit from his own content, the same as any other student at the university does. 

I completely agree with you, my statement about turning monetization off wasnt what I think he should have to do, but a way for him to get around it based on the current situation 

[iacas]

22 minutes ago, Pretzel said:

But why the hell should he have to turn monetization off? He has every right to produce and profit from his own content, the same as any other student at the university does. 

Be careful with words like him having a "right" to do this. He effectively entered into a contract with the school for the scholarship.

Whether that contract is illegal or needs to be changed, or whatever, is what the discussion is about. But right now, no, he may not have that "right."

[Pretzel]

10 hours ago, iacas said:

Be careful with words like him having a "right" to do this. He effectively entered into a contract with the school for the scholarship.

Whether that contract is illegal or needs to be changed, or whatever, is what the discussion is about. But right now, no, he may not have that "right."

That's I suppose a more accurate way to put it. That said, people are allowed to work and provide for themselves, generally speaking, and most similar types of contract (non-compete clauses specifically) have been struck down time and time again in courts for violating someone's "right to work" (in quotes since it isn't a constitutional right).