Chris Spielman Sues Alma Mater Ohio State

#26
#26
VFL-82-JP said:
Oh, yeah, I know the law sides with him. And I don't hold it against him to pursue this. I'm just perplexed at why it 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.
Click to expand...
and I am saying your point of view would be greatly different if your image and likeness was something that was marketable. Ask Michael Jordan if people should be able to use his image to sell stuff without his agreement or compensation.
 
#27
#27
Huff haven't you argued against copyright laws and that authors don't own their own work? What's the difference here?
 
#28
#28
BearCat204 said:
and I am saying your point of view would be greatly different if your image and likeness was something that was marketable. Ask Michael Jordan if people should be able to use his image to sell stuff without his agreement or compensation.
Click to expand...

That whole frame of mind starts with the idea that one's likeness and image are one's personal property.

If we as a society weren't stuck on that idea, Michael Jordan's perspective on how other people use photos of him might be very different.

He's a product of this society just like the rest of us. His values and expectations are defined by it, to a greater or lesser extent.

If no one had ever invented the (to me odd) idea that one's likeness and image are one's own possession, no matter where or how captured, then maybe Michael Jordan wouldn't have that frame of mind.

See? Self-licking ice cream cone.


p.s. There was a brief period of time during my Army career when my image and likeness were somewhat marketable. Not Jordan-famous marketable, not even close, but well known enough in a couple of states and particularly in certain communities/regions of those states that some businesses, societies and non-governmental organizations might want to obtain my endorsement. I was even asked to give an endorsement on a few different occasions (never did, would've conflicted with my governmental position and duties). And my image was used, more than once, by politicians and organizations who saw some benefit in the association. So I'm not being entirely theoretical when I give my perspective; there's a bit of real life practical experience involved.
 
Last edited:
#30
#30
VFL-82-JP said:
That whole frame of mind starts with the idea that one's likeness and image are one's personal property.
Click to expand...

So, if you were an owner of, say, a restaurant, and your direct competitor put your face on his ads, no big deal? It would be fine to imply that you prefer his restaurant to your own?
 
#31
#31
bamawriter said:
So, if you were an owner of, say, a restaurant, and your direct competitor put your face on his ads, no big deal? It would be fine to imply that you prefer his restaurant to your own?
Click to expand...

It would be out of control if you could use anyone's likeness.
 
#32
#32
bamawriter said:
So, if you were an owner of, say, a restaurant, and your direct competitor put your face on his ads, no big deal? It would be fine to imply that you prefer his restaurant to your own?
Click to expand...

It only implies that I prefer his restaurant to mine if you believe that an image = an endorsement.

Which, as I've already mentioned, I don't get. I believe an endorsement comes with some kind of active statement of support, such as, "I really like this restaurant and eat there all the time."

Short of that endorsement, a photo of me is...just a photo. From my perspective, that is.
 
Last edited:
#33
#33
VolGee4 said:
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.
Click to expand...

Advertisement, sure. Anything can be an advertisement.

But endorsement? No. Not without the person actually, you know, endorsing the product.

As for you and me having different perspectives, sure we do, and that's fine. I'm not saying my perspective is the right one, much less the only one. Just saying it's my perspective.
 
#34
#34
VFL-82-JP said:
It only implies that I prefer his restaurant to mine if you believe that an image = an endorsement.

Which, as I've already mentioned, I don't believe. I believe an endorsement comes with some kind of active statement of support, such as, "I really like this restaurant and eat there all the time."

Short of that endorsement, a photo of me is...just a photo.
Click to expand...

The issue in this example isn't what you think, but what the customer thinks.
 
#35
#35
bamawriter said:
So, if you were an owner of, say, a restaurant, and your direct competitor put your face on his ads, no big deal? It would be fine to imply that you prefer his restaurant to your own?
Click to expand...

That would be dumb to use your advertising budget to make the other guy more recognizable.
 
#36
#36
VolGee4 said:
It would be out of control if you could use anyone's likeness.
Click to expand...

Only if people cared. Only if people were stuck in the framework that one's image and likeness are their personal property (and thus imply an endorsement when used).
 
#39
#39
bamawriter said:
If you don't own yourself, what can you possibly own?
Click to expand...

My image isn't myself. There's only one me. There can be thousands, even millions, of images of me. They're not me.

Now you ARE beginning to sound like the legendary Mayans, and that whole "take my image and steal my soul" thing. :)
 
#41
#41
bamawriter said:
Can one's image have value?
Click to expand...

Sure, and in many different ways.

Your momma values your photo, because it reminds her of you. It has sentimental value.

A photo of you leaving the bank just after it was robbed has forensic value.

A statue of your naked body, if you're a real stud, can have artistic value in some circles, and erotic value in others.

Finally, your image can, under some circumstances have financial value to some people for some reasons.

But whether you get to claim any of those various forms of value, well, that's just a construct of this society we live in.

Our society says you get to claim the financial value.

Wouldn't it be funny if you had the right to claim the forensic value? Then the cops couldn't use that image of you running out of the bank in court. Not without your express permission.

Why is it that we can claim ownership of our likeness and image for financial purposes, but not for forensic purposes?

Starting to see how weird this idea of ownership of ones image and likeness can get, when you start looking at it from all angles?
 
Last edited:
#42
#42
VFL-82-JP said:
Only if people cared. Only if people were stuck in the framework that one's image and likeness are their personal property (and thus imply an endorsement when used).
Click to expand...

Yes, people have cared about their reputation since the beginning of man. People care because they don't want to be associated with certain products. If a company can selectively choose people to advertise and "endorse" their product (which advertising is a firm of endorsement), then individuals can also decline them as well. I have no issue with differing opinions, but this line of thinking is mind boggling to me.
 
  • Like
Reactions: 1 person
#43
#43
The idea of ownership, of anything, is a societal construct. If society is wrong about you owning your image, then they are equally as wrong about you owning your car.
 
#44
#44
VolGee4 said:
Yes, people have cared about their reputation since the beginning of man. People care because they don't want to be associated with certain products. If a company can selectively choose people to advertise and "endorse" their product (which advertising is a firm of endorsement), then individuals can also decline them as well. I have no issue with differing opinions, but this line of thinking is mind boggling to me.
Click to expand...

You're stuck thinking within the framework that society gives us.

Which is fine. I'm not saying your perspective is wrong. Society in fact says it is right. I'm just saying I see things differently.
 
#45
#45
bamawriter said:
The idea of ownership, of anything, is a societal construct. If society is wrong about you owning your image, then they are equally as wrong about you owning your car.
Click to expand...

Ah, see that's where your logic suffers a fault.

Just as I could buy one of those thousands of photos of me, and then I would indeed own that photo, I can also own a car, or a loaf of bread, or a house.


Our society establishes the idea of ownership based on possession. And our society further establishes a construct called bartering for the exchange of goods, so that I can gain ownership of something someone else possessed before me.

If I don't possess most of those images of me, then maybe I don't actually have any claim to them....?

This new thought you've introduced, if you chase it to its root, actually supports my frame of view concerning images and ownership better than it does yours.
 
#46
#46
VFL-82-JP said:
Ah, see that's where your logic suffers a fault.

Just as I could buy one of those thousands of photos of me, and then I would indeed own that photo, I can also own a car, or a loaf of bread, or a house.


Our society establishes the idea of ownership based on possession. And our society further establishes a construct called bartering for the exchange of goods, so that I can gain ownership of something someone else possessed before me.

If I don't possess most of those images of me, then maybe I don't actually have any claim to them....?

This new thought you've introduced, if you chase it to its root, it actually supports my frame of view better than it does yours or society's.
Click to expand...

Actually, the issue seems to be you not distinguishing between an image and one's image.
 
#47
#47
bamawriter said:
Actually, the issue seems to be you not distinguishing between an image and one's image.
Click to expand...

Now you're getting stuck inside the circularity of your own argument.

If you don't accept a priori that one's own image is somehow one's possession, then there is no real difference between an image that includes your likeness and an image that does not. That image belongs 100% to the person who painted it, or drew it, or took the photo, or made the video.

But when you do get stuck in that a priori assumption, all these arguments become circular. Suddenly, anyone whose likeness is in the image has a claim to some degree of ownership of the image (or more accurately, its use). See? Self-licking ice cream cone. Doesn't allow for any perspective but itself, by definition.
 
Last edited:
#48
#48
VFL-82-JP said:
Now you're getting stuck in societal norms.

If you don't accept a priori that one's own image is one's possession, then there is no real difference between an image that includes your likeness and an image that does not. That image belongs 100% to the person who painted it, or drew it, or took the photo, or made the video.

But when you do get stuck in that a priori assumption, all these arguments become circular. Suddenly, anyone whose likeness is in the image has a claim to some degree of ownership of the image (or more accurately, its use). See? Self-licking ice cream cone. Doesn't allow for any perspective but itself, by definition.
Click to expand...

Again, the idea of ownership of anything is a societal construct. You are arguing the priority of one construct over another.
 
Last edited:
#49
#49
bamawriter said:
Again, the idea of ownership of anything as a societal construct. You are arguing the priority of one construct over another.
Click to expand...

No, I'm not. I am very explicitly not.

I've said, many times now, that this is just my perspective. That I understand it doesn't match society's construct. That I'm not claiming my perspective is any more right or just than any other perspective. That it is simply mine.

You can't have missed me acknowledging that, all the times I did (check posts 24, 32, 33, and 44).
 
Last edited:
#50
#50
I am just surprised that they could not get together and settle the matter without going to court. Ohio State was clearly wrong not to ask, but hard to imagine could not settle it themselves.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top