https://www.si.com/college-football...te-football-img-college-ed-obannon-honda-nike
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk
The school may need for the player to sign off on the use of his likeness for things like programs or having his image on TV during games.Where does this end.
Agree.A company should pay the people and or images of people in their adds. Period.
And agree.I for one welcome the destruction of amateurism.
They already do, it's called the cost of attendance and was mentioned at the end of the article. It only covers the players image/likeness during their time in school. Once they leave, a school or ad firm should be required to negotiate with each player to be able to continue use there likeness. I would have thought this was common since but I guess not. I mean if you tried to use the schools likeness to make money without permission they'd come after you. Should be the same way with ex-players.Are current player required to sign a release? Will there be language in each scholarship offer that require the release of the players image as part of acceptance?
I do think that the re-airing or sell of classic broadcast should be exempt as long as the school isn't using a specific players likeness to advertise the past broadcast. So Auburn couldn't say "own Cam's greatest moments". Instead they'd have to say something like "relive the greatest moments of 2010".
The poster formerly known as RollTide1017
It could hurt many players if they decide to forgo college. On the other hand the college teams would be made up of true students. The play on the field would not be what it is, but it would put the student back into student athlete. It would take some pressure off High Schools to give passing grades to athletes just so they have a chance to play pro ball. Very few kids would make sports their college major. I can see good and bad either way.I for one welcome the destruction of amateurism.
IMO, that's borderline fine. Yes, they're likely capitalizing off of his popularity, but that's potentially a defensible position.I lived in Knoxville when Peyton was playing there.
I once saw an ad on the side of a bus for a car dealer. The ad had a painting of someone wearing an orange jersey with the number 16. He had on a white helmet and was in a throwing motion.
Now, Manning's face and name were not in the picture. Also, nowhere did it indicate this was supposed to be a Vol football player. (The helmet was blank).
But it was pretty clear what they were trying to do. To me, that was just plain wrong.
Exactly. Can question why they would use a 16 jersey, but that's not using his likeness.IMO, that's borderline fine. Yes, they're likely capitalizing off of his popularity, but that's potentially a defensible position.
That said, I'd never do that with one of my businesses. Nope.
Using the actual likeness is a whole other level, and I hope Spielman wins this. Just because you played there doesn't mean the school owns your likeness forever.
No, they weren't using his actual likeness, but they were definitely sticking their toe over the line. I think he had a case if he had pushed the issue at the time.Exactly. Can question why they would use a 16 jersey, but that's not using his likeness.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
So you feel the University is entitled to use his likeness in perpetuity because he played there?As for Spielman, if it is on a sponsored poster, he deserves a cut. If they just put up his picture with no corporate money whatsoever, they are in the clear.
If it is just pictures of former stars, I don't have a problem with it. Should we pay royalties to everyone who has a picture in the Bryant Museum?So you feel the University is entitled to use his likeness in perpetuity because he played there?
I think once he's done playing, they lose the right to use his likeness - if they want to use him, that means he brings them some benefit, and he should be paid accordingly.
So in 2005 when there were drawings of an Alabama player wearing a 12 jersey, should Brodie have gotten money? After all, Alabama used 12 on helmets and jerseys from 1992-2009. Similar to what you're describing with Peyton.No, they weren't using his actual likeness, but they were definitely sticking their toe over the line. I think he had a case if he had pushed the issue at the time.
As for Spielman, if it is on a sponsored poster, he deserves a cut. If they just put up his picture with no corporate money whatsoever, they are in the clear.
Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
Are you equating a museum display to monetizing someone's image for the benefit of the university? Two very different things, imo.If it is just pictures of former stars, I don't have a problem with it. Should we pay royalties to everyone who has a picture in the Bryant Museum?