Chris Spielman Sues Alma Mater Ohio State

#4
#4
It's been said that any money awarded will be donated back to the school. This is just another attempt at bringing the discussion of paying players back up, IMO.
 
Last edited:
#8
#8
I never understood the legal construct that a person's likeness or image is a possession of his.

It's almost like the modern-day version of the legend that the Mayans and other native American and Australian cultures believed mirrors (and by extension, cameras) could steal one's soul.

I'm on vacation with my family in Disney World. Some other dude on vacation with his family snaps a photo that happens to include me in the background. So I somehow have a legal right to a portion of his photo?

Just doesn't make sense to me. What you, or anyone else, capture in the open air, in a public place, that's yours far as I can see.

Nothing against Spielman or any other player who wants money for playing football (in college or elsewhere), I just don't get the whole "likeness and image" property angle.
 
#9
#9
VFL-82-JP said:
I never understood the legal construct that a person's likeness or image is a possession of his.

It's almost like the modern-day version of the legend that the Mayans and other native American and Australian cultures believed mirrors (and by extension, cameras) could steal one's soul.

I'm on vacation with my family in Disney World. Some other dude on vacation with his family snaps a photo that happens to include me in the background. So I somehow have a legal right to a portion of his photo?

Just doesn't make sense to me. What you, or anyone else, capture in the open air, in a public place, that's yours far as I can see.

Nothing against Spielman or any other player who wants money for playing football (in college or elsewhere), I just don't get the whole "likeness and image" property angle.
Click to expand...

So if that person who took your picture started selling them and making a ton of money, you wouldn't think that you should be entitled to at least a portion of that?
 
#10
#10
BearCat204 said:
So if that person who took your picture started selling them and making a ton of money, you wouldn't think that you should be entitled to at least a portion of that?
Click to expand...

No. Not at all. I'd deserve just as much money from sales of that photo as, say, the elephant in the pen beside me. Or the tree over my left shoulder. Or the rock my foot is propped up on.

The dude took the picture of what was openly available in the world. It's his picture.

I committed myself to sharing my image freely by walking out my front door without a burqa over my head. BTW, I meant that literally: freely.

That's how I see it, anyway.
 
#13
#13
95 Vol Alum said:
What if he used your face to advertise his erectile dysfunction drug? On a billboard. On I-10. Still good?
Click to expand...

What do I care? The photo cost me nothing. Its use in an ad cost me nothing. I might get some ribbing from the guys in the office if they see it, but I also might get some cuties flirting with me (not that my wife would allow me to do anything about it, heh).

What's any of that to me?

Now, the point I think you were driving at is this: what if it impunes my character by libelling me through visual media? Well, we have different laws (libel laws) to handle that. Don't need separate stuff about 'likeness and image' being personal property for that.
 
#14
#14
VFL-82-JP said:
What do I care? The photo cost me nothing. Its use in an ad cost me nothing. I might get some ribbing from the guys in the office if they see it, but I also might get some cuties flirting with me (not that my wife would allow me to do anything about it, heh).

What's any of that to me?

Now, the point I think you were driving at is this: what if it impunes my character by libelling me through visual media? Well, we have different laws (libel laws) to handle that. Don't need separate stuff about 'likeness and image' being personal property for that.
Click to expand...

Using your face in advertising conveys you endorse said product. That's what OSU is doing. If you are famous and own a food franchise, you wouldn't approve of a competing franchise using your face to advertise their products.

Or maybe you would, but that wouldn't jive with the rest of the world.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#16
#16
I believe the difference here is that OSU is using his likeness with a sponsor attached to it. Spielman certainly has an issue when OSU uses his likeness with Honda when he has a local deal with a Mazda dealership.

I believe many schools use pictures of former players inside facilities, and it is ok as long as they aren't profiting from a sponsor.
 
Last edited:
#17
#17
VolGee4 said:
I believe the difference here is that OSU is using his likeness with a sponsor attached to it. Spielman certainly has an issue when OSU uses his likeness with Honda when he has a local deal with a Mazda dealership.

I believe many schools use pictures of former players inside facilities, and it is ok as long as they aren't profiting from a sponsor.
Click to expand...

I'm confused because the article says UNDERNEATH the poster was the word Honda. Maybe just poor wording on the writer's part, but if it was a Honda poster with his image on it, then it should read something like, "at the bottom of the poster was the word Honda". The way it's written, it implies it was a separate sign/banner. If that's the case then I fail to see how he has a claim. It's not clear from that article how it's laid out.

What's with donating it to the athletic department? He's going to sue OSU, take their money and turn around and give it right back? Plus an additional money from Honda and Nike? Money that both are already giving to OSU in the form of advertising revenue.
 
Last edited:
#18
#18
bowlinggreenvol said:
I'm confused because the article says UNDERNEATH the poster was the word Honda. Maybe just poor wording on the writer's part, but if it was a Honda poster with his image on it, then it should read something like, "at the bottom of the poster was the word Honda". The way it's written, it implies it was a separate sign/banner. If that's the case then I fail to see how he has a claim. It's not clear from that article how it's laid out.

What's with donating it to the athletic department? He's going to sue OSU, take their money and turn around and give it right back? Plus an additional money from Honda and Nike? Money that both are already giving to OSU in the form of advertising revenue.
Click to expand...

I still think even if the sponsorship name wasn't attached, it still appears that they are using the name along with his image. If they made a poster with Honda's name with general OSU graphics and then had a separate poster of him with other players, then it's different.

He still likes his alma mater, and apparently, any prior cease and desist letters (if sent) didn't work. Therefore legal action was required to stop it, but he is willing to give the money back and not profit from it. The point is that he wants it to stop, and a lawsuit was necessary to accomplish that.
 
#19
#19
95 Vol Alum said:
Using your face in advertising conveys you endorse said product. That's what OSU is doing. If you are famous and own a food franchise, you wouldn't approve of a competing franchise using your face to advertise their products.

Or maybe you would, but that wouldn't jive with the rest of the world.
Click to expand...

Having a tough time caring. So someone puts my picture on an ad that says Nike flip flops are the best flip flops in the world. No skin off my nose, and no effort required on my part, so no need for compensation.

So the whole "you should care because the Adidas guys who paid you to endorse their flip flops, they care, and if you don't care, why should they pay you to endorse, why not just take a free photo of you and use that without paying you?" That whole logic chain starts with the idea that my photo = my endorsement. Which puts us right back at the original weird idea that our likeness and image belong to us like property.

So it's a really circular argument. Endorsements should involve words, whether videotaped or in writing, something like, "I really like this product a lot and use it myself." Nothing more than a photo of a dude, well, that's not an endorsement, because the photo isn't saying anything positive or negative.

Any interpretation on our collective part that it does, that's just the whole "likeness and image" thing circling back into the argument.

It really is a self-licking ice cream cone, seems to me.
 
Last edited:
#20
#20
VFL-82-JP said:
What do I care? The photo cost me nothing. Its use in an ad cost me nothing. I might get some ribbing from the guys in the office if they see it, but I also might get some cuties flirting with me (not that my wife would allow me to do anything about it, heh).

What's any of that to me?

Now, the point I think you were driving at is this: what if it impunes my character by libelling me through visual media? Well, we have different laws (libel laws) to handle that. Don't need separate stuff about 'likeness and image' being personal property for that.
Click to expand...

You'd be the face of ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION! "Cuties" that flirted with you would fall into the same lot as those that flirt with gay guys. :w00t:
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#21
#21
VFL-82-JP said:
Having a tough time caring. So someone puts my picture on an ad that says Nike flip flops are the best flip flops in the world. No skin off my nose, and no effort required on my part, so no need for compensation.

Still not getting why anyone cares, other than for a money grab.
Click to expand...

You definitely have a very different way at looking at it. You probably don't care because noone would actually profit off your likeness..... Would be a different story if you were someone with notoriety, no matter how much you deny it now. Not to mention, the law clearly sides with Spielman on this one.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 3 people
#22
#22
VFL-82-JP said:
Having a tough time caring. So someone puts my picture on an ad that says Nike flip flops are the best flip flops in the world. No skin off my nose, and no effort required on my part, so no need for compensation.

Still not getting why anyone cares, other than for a money grab.
Click to expand...

Go make some ads with tOSU's logo on it, make some $, and see what happens.

I agree with what you're saying, but this is the world we live in and the big guy doing it to the little guy when the big guy won't tolerate it is ****ed up.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 2 people
#23
#23
butchna said:
You'd be the face of ERECTILE DYSFUNCTION! "Cuties" that flirted with you would fall into the same lot as those that flirt with gay guys. :w00t:
Click to expand...

You think gay guys aren't getting a lot of flirting?

Gals are just like guys in this way: they love a challenge. :)
 
#24
#24
BearCat204 said:
You definitely have a very different way at looking at it. You probably don't care because noone would actually profit off your likeness..... Would be a different story if you were someone with notoriety, no matter how much you deny it now. Not to mention, the law clearly sides with Spielman on this one.
Click to expand...

Oh, yeah, I know the law sides with him. And I don't hold it against Spielman to pursue this. I'm just perplexed at why the law sides with him. Don't understand why we ended up in this place, where one's likeness and image is one's own personal property.

Listen, I'm not saying my point of view is right. It's just my point of view. I always just found the "likeness and image" thing weird.
 
Last edited:
#25
#25
VFL-82-JP said:
Having a tough time caring. So someone puts my picture on an ad that says Nike flip flops are the best flip flops in the world. No skin off my nose, and no effort required on my part, so no need for compensation.

So the whole "you should care because the Adidas guys who paid you to endorse their flip flops, they care, and if you don't care, why should they pay you to endorse, why not just take a free photo of you and use that without paying you?" That whole logic chain starts with the idea that my photo = my endorsement. Which puts us right back at the original weird idea that our likeness and image belong to us like property.

So it's a really circular argument. Endorsements should involve words, whether videotaped or in writing, something like, "I really like this product a lot and use it myself." Nothing more than a photo of a dude, well, that's not an endorsement, because the photo isn't saying anything positive or negative.

Any interpretation on our collective part that it does, that's just the whole "likeness and image" thing circling back into the argument.

It really is a self-licking ice cream cone, seems to me.
Click to expand...

You don't think pictures of people and a sponsor aren't true advertisement? These are littered all over the world and have been for years. That is true advertisement.

If someone took a picture of me and plastered it on a poster with a sponsor that I did not care for, then I would have a problem with it. I don't want to be associated with it. That's advertising 101.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top