Chris Spielman Sues Alma Mater Ohio State

[95 Vol Alum]

Filed by who?

Former Ohio State players.

 

[BigZiti09]

Former Ohio State players.

Is there a list?

 

[BigZiti09]

No, but you give the impression that you hold the players responsible for the result, which is an absurd position.

My position is it was stupid and it accomplished nothing.

It is still ametuer athletics. I realize there's a lot of money involved but it's not professional athletics.

 

[bamawriter]

My position is it was stupid and it accomplished nothing.

It is still ametuer athletics. I realize there's a lot of money involved but it's not professional athletics.

What was stupid? The suit or the NCAA refusing to license the game?

If the NCAA were to license the game, then the game would be produced and the players would get paid. That's quite a lot that was accomplished by the suit.

 

[BigZiti09]

What was stupid? The suit or the NCAA refusing to license the game?

If the NCAA were to license the game, then the game would be produced and the players would get paid. That's quite a lot that was accomplished by the suit.

But all that has happened is...

Players got a small check.

Game no longer made.

That's it. Nothing else has been accomplished. Not talking about "what ifs."

 

[95 Vol Alum]

Is there a list?

I already have a boss and a wife.

 

[BigZiti09]

I already have a boss and a wife.

In other words, no there's not. Just spielman filing a class action suit on behalf of himself and others.

 

[bamawriter]

But all that has happened is...

Players got a small check.

Game no longer made.

That's it. Nothing else has been accomplished. Not talking about "what ifs."

You are conflating two separate actions by two separate entities and treating them as if they are one.

The ruling did not prevent the game from being made.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

In other words, no there's not. Just spielman filing a class action suit on behalf of himself and others.

It's all the guys on the banners. There's like 60+. Yes on their behalf if that's somehow significant to you. I don't know every player and suspect you can use Google much like myself.

 

[bamawriter]

It's all the guys on the banners. There's like 60+. Yes on their behalf if that's somehow significant to you. I don't know every player and suspect you can use Google much like myself.

Archie Griffin has already joined the class, so that's at least one other than Spielman.

 

[BigZiti09]

It's all the guys on the banners. There's like 60+. Yes on their behalf if that's somehow significant to you. I don't know every player and suspect you can use Google much like myself.

So there's 60+ people on this banner? I thought it just had him on it. What a self important goon.

 

[bamawriter]

So there's 60+ people on this banner? I thought it just had him on it. What a self important goon.

There are 60+ individual banners.

 

[BigZiti09]

There are 60+ individual banners.

Ok. That makes a little more sense. My bad.

 

[95 Vol Alum]

So there's 60+ people on this banner? I thought it just had him on it. What a self important goon.

Again, there's plenty available to read. You're in here arguing something, not sure what, and you don't even know the particulars of the case or situation.

 

[Orangedogsrule]

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.

All wrong. You must be trolling for the lulz of it.

In today's tv, newspaper, magazine, internet, ad conscious world, a VAST margin of people believe the advertising use of one's image implies you approve of and endorse the product. It's laughable to say one shouldn't care if your image is used by someone to sell, say Cadillacs, when you yourself have put a lot of money into developing a dealership to sell Fords. One absolutely should have the ability to grant or deny the use of your own image. And one should expect to be compensated at the going rate.

 

[BigZiti09]

Again, there's plenty available to read. You're in here arguing something, not sure what, and you don't even know the particulars of the case or situation.

I read the article in the OP. I disagree with this notion that college athletes are exploited and then the "bones picked over decades later" as quoted in the article. It's just so dramatic. Give me a break.

 

[VolGee4]

I read the article in the OP. I disagree with this notion that college athletes are exploited and then the "bones picked over decades later" as quoted in the article. It's just so dramatic. Give me a break.

Ziti, it's pretty simple. His likeness was being used to make money from a sponsor that he didn't approve and in fact, one in which he had a conflict. There are stories that occasionally come out like this that I deem to be silly, but this is not one.

Ohio State is either playing hard ball or they have some dumb people giving them advice. I am fairly confident in saying that a vast majority of college programs know what they can use and plaster their former athletes in their facilities without attaching sponsorships. Put your players up in one area and your sponsors up in another.

 

[BigZiti09]

Ziti, it's pretty simple. His likeness was being used to make money from a sponsor that he didn't approve and in fact, one in which he had a conflict. There are stories that occasionally come out like this that I deem to be silly, but this is not one.

Ohio State is either playing hard ball or they have some dumb people giving them advice. I am fairly confident in saying that a vast majority of college programs know what they can use and plaster their former athletes in their facilities without attaching sponsorships. Put your players up in one area and your sponsors up in another.

Yeah I see what you're saying. Ohio State you'd think would be smarter than that.

I don't think a lawsuit is the answer. But....I wouldn't think OSU could be so dumb either.

I guess my bigger problem is the slant that this former athletes are so exploited and mistreated. Just grinds my gears.

 

[VolGee4]

Yeah I see what you're saying. Ohio State you'd think would be smarter than that.

I don't think a lawsuit is the answer. But....I wouldn't think OSU could be so dumb either.

I guess my bigger problem is the slant that this former athletes are so exploited and mistreated. Just grinds my gears.

I went back and read the OP's article again, and I think Spielman's quotes are very reasonable. He said that he is "humbled and honored when OSU uses my image." He just wanted a courtesy call from them before using it. If so, he would have told them he had had a long relationship with Mazda and they couldn't do it. To me, the writer puts a negative connotation on it. That's what writers can do- spin it how they want it.

 

[BigZiti09]

I went back and read the OP's article again, and I think Spielman's quotes are very reasonable. He said that he is "humbled and honored when OSU uses my image." He just wanted a courtesy call from them before using it. If so, he would have told them he had had a long relationship with Mazda and they couldn't do it. To me, the writer puts a negative connotation on it. That's what writers can do- spin it how they want it.

Good post. I think you're right. The article's spin may be what's got me riled up for the most part.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

All wrong. You must be trolling for the lulz of it.

In today's tv, newspaper, magazine, internet, ad conscious world, a VAST margin of people believe the advertising use of one's image implies you approve of and endorse the product. It's laughable to say one shouldn't care if your image is used by someone to sell, say Cadillacs, when you yourself have put a lot of money into developing a dealership to sell Fords. One absolutely should have the ability to grant or deny the use of your own image. And one should expect to be compensated at the going rate.

Which is simply all to say that you share the common viewpoint. Congratulations.

I've always thought it was a weird direction for our society to go in.

And note: we didn't have to go in this direction. Society could have evolved where there were no financial rights attached to one's likeness. Just as today there are no forensic rights to one's image.

 

[bamawriter]

Which is simply all to say that you share the common viewpoint. Congratulations.

I've always thought it was a weird direction for our society to go in.

And note: we didn't have to go in this direction. Society could have evolved where there were no financial rights attached to one's likeness. Just as today there are no forensic rights to one's image.

That really is a fascinating stance.

Society has spent the past few centuries developing the wrong ideas of ownership, representation, and expression.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

That really is a fascinating stance.

Society has spent the past few centuries developing the wrong ideas of ownership, representation, and expression.

I think we (society) have gotten a lot of it right over the many centuries since civilization was truly born. But we've gone down some blind alleys, too, and had to backtrack. And we have hangers-on from older days, things that made sense then that don't any longer, but we still run with them.

Will ownership of one's likeness and image be one of those dead-end alleys, something we back away from 50 or 100 or 500 years from now? Time will tell. It just always seemed an odd approach, to me.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

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.

I don't get the logic of incurring legal fees to sue the university only to return the money.

 

[MyBloodRunnethOrange]

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.

What if somebody used your likeness with a Florida Gators banner that said go Gators?