Chris Spielman Sues Alma Mater Ohio State

#130
#130
MyBloodRunnethOrange said:
What if somebody used your likeness with a Florida Gators banner that said go Gators?
Click to expand...

Heh, I'd get a laugh out of it. And anyone who knew me would see it as a nice joke, too.

And that would be true even if I were famous. Could you see some fraternity creating a big sign for College Gameday, with Peyton's mug shot, saying "I'm a huge fan of the Florida Gators!" Everyone would laugh, no one would believe it, it'd be a cute joke.

Photo does not = endorsement. Words like, "I use this product, and think you should too," = endorsement. The photo is just the reminder of who the person is.
 
#134
#134
VFL-82-JP said:
Heh, I'd get a laugh out of it. And anyone who knew me would see it as a nice joke, too.

And that would be true even if I were famous. Could you see some fraternity creating a big sign for College Gameday, with Peyton's mug shot, saying "I'm a huge fan of the Florida Gators!" Everyone would laugh, no one would believe it, it'd be a cute joke.

Photo does not = endorsement. Words like, "I use this product, and think you should too," = endorsement. The photo is just the reminder of who the person is.
Click to expand...

But your photo does equal an endorsement. You are in a small minority with that line of thinking.

It's human nature to see Peyton Manning's photo on an abortion clinic billboard and think "why is Manning a part of an abortion clinic" and make a judgment.
 
#136
#136
VFL-82-JP said:
Heh, I'd get a laugh out of it. And anyone who knew me would see it as a nice joke, too.

And that would be true even if I were famous. Could you see some fraternity creating a big sign for College Gameday, with Peyton's mug shot, saying "I'm a huge fan of the Florida Gators!" Everyone would laugh, no one would believe it, it'd be a cute joke.

Photo does not = endorsement. Words like, "I use this product, and think you should too," = endorsement. The photo is just the reminder of who the person is.
Click to expand...

If you put a 10 story sign up on a tall building in Times Square with Peyton's picture and a State Farm logo, it would indeed be considered an endorsement. I don't know how else you can interpret such a thing. That is the simplest form of advertisement and endorsement in the world.
 
Last edited:
#137
#137
95 Vol Alum said:
But your photo does equal an endorsement. You are in a small minority with that line of thinking.

It's human nature to see Peyton Manning's photo on an abortion clinic billboard and think "why is Manning a part of an abortion clinic" and make a judgment.
Click to expand...

VolGee4 said:
If you put a 10 story sign up on a tall building in Times Square with Peyton's picture and a State Farm logo, it would indeed be considered an endorsement. I don't know how else you can interpret such a thing. That is the simplest form of advertisement and endorsement in the world.
Click to expand...

Oh, you're both right, that's how things ARE.

You've missed the context of my comments. I'm saying the way things are is weird to me. It seems to me far more rational for photographs and other "likenesses" of us not to be our property at all...and if our likenesses were not our personal possessions, then a likeness would NOT be seen as an endorsement. The latter 'truth' flows from the earlier societal decision to go in a certain direction.

You just missed the context, that's all.
 
#138
#138
VFL-82-JP said:
Oh, you're both right, that's how things ARE.

You've missed the context of my comments. I'm saying the way things are is weird to me. It seems to me far more rational for photographs and other "likenesses" of us not to be our property at all...and if our likenesses were not our personal possessions, then a likeness would NOT be seen as an endorsement. The latter 'truth' flows from the earlier societal decision to go in a certain direction.

You just missed the context, that's all.
Click to expand...

All I can say is that I have a difficult time dealing with fantasy instead of reality. If someone puts two images on the same sign, paper, poster, etc., then logic says that the two go together and mean something. There is no reason to put a random picture and a logo together if it doesn't have some "meaning."

I don't know what else to say. I think you are somewhat confused by images used for advertisement compared to those found in a public forum. If you happen to be in the background of some other family picture at a public location, then there is no issue because the family isn't profiting from its picture. Just because a person gets there picture taken doesn't necessarily mean they can profit from your likeness. Only when an organization uses your image to promote their product and profits off the use of the image.
 
#139
#139
VolGee4 said:
All I can say is that I have a difficult time dealing with fantasy instead of reality. If someone puts two images on the same sign, paper, poster, etc., then logic says that the two go together and mean something. There is no reason to put a random picture and a logo together if it doesn't have some "meaning."

I don't know what else to say. I think you are somewhat confused by images used for advertisement compared to those found in a public forum. If you happen to be in the background of some other family picture at a public location, then there is no issue because the family isn't profiting from its picture. Just because a person gets there picture taken doesn't necessarily mean they can profit from your likeness. Only when an organization uses your image to promote their product and profits off the use of the image.
Click to expand...

You're doing a good job describing how things are. And you've freely admitted you have a hard time imagining things differently.

So we've really not got a lot more to talk about, because I understand how things are as well, but I can see how society could've gone in a totally different direction. And believe that other direction would actually have made more sense.

But if you have a hard time imagining that, what is there for us to discuss? Another iteration of "here's how things are"?
 
#140
#140
VFL-82-JP said:
Oh, you're both right, that's how things ARE.

You've missed the context of my comments. I'm saying the way things are is weird to me.

You just missed the context, that's all.
Click to expand...

While I understand, and ultimately agree, that an image of oneself is not actually oneself, is it not a representation of oneself?

If you think not, then okay. I hope the aforementioned NAMBLA billboard never goes up.
 
#141
#141
bamawriter said:
While I understand, and ultimately agree, that an image of oneself is not actually oneself, is it not a representation of oneself?

If you think not, then okay. I hope the aforementioned NAMBLA billboard never goes up.
Click to expand...

I think you've just put your finger on the reason we ended up where we are in society on this issue.

Some lawsuit somewhere (maybe back in Britain, pre-revoluationary times, for all we know) decided a case where some guy argued that a painting or drawing or photo or other likeness of him "represented him" and so could not be put up on the side of the local house of ill repute. Or whatever. And the judge and/or jury agreed with him, forming precedent.

And over the decades and centuries, that precedent was reinforced in the courts in some places, maybe weakened a bit in other places, until we end up where we are today. The wonder and beauty of common law.

But for me? No, I don't think a photo taken by some stranger in Disney World 10 years ago and sitting on his mantle at home, showing his lovely family with my own family off in the background over their shoulders, represents me. I don't feel like I have any kind of presence, legal or financial or of any or sort, in his home. No claim to whatever he wants to do with that photo, either. If he's a travel agent, and pastes it all over the front of his shop in splendid 5 foot by 8 foot enlargement, more power to him. I'm not gonna feel like I should get 1.3% of his profits from the promotion, just because my mug is on 1.3% of the pixels or something. It's his photo. I'm on it, and a tree is on it, and the sky is on it, and we're all just background. Which is free for him to capture a likeness of in public places.

That's how I feel, anyway.



EDIT and p.s. That gets me wondering whether the law distinguishes between a likeness that is part of the background of a photo, not the main focal point, and a likeness that forms the main subject matter of the image.

Like, do Chris Spielman's legal and financial rights vary depending on whether it's a head and shoulders shot of just him, versus a picture some dude took in the local restaurant with his camera where that dude's mug fills 80% of the picture, but Chris is clearly visible sitting at a nearby table? You know, lots of people take shots of themselves "with" famous people that way. Does that latter shot have all the same financial strings attached as the shot just of Chris? What if that dude is a local DJ, and starts a promotion for the radio station using the "photo bombed" image? How hard do the "image and likeness" laws capture that situation? I wonder.
 
Last edited:
#142
#142
The idea of an image as representation goes back way beyond any modern legal theory.

King Tut's sarcofagus is an image as representation. The ancient Egyptians had were very clear on the idea of images representing themselves as they wished to be represented. And I doubt the idea began with them.
 
#143
#143
VFL-82-JP said:
I think you've just put your finger on the reason we ended up where we are in society on this issue.

Some lawsuit somewhere (maybe back in Britain, pre-revoluationary times, for all we know) decided a case where some guy argued that a painting or drawing or photo or other likeness of him "represented him" and so could not be put up on the side of the local house of ill repute. Or whatever. And the judge and/or jury agreed with him, forming precedent.

And over the decades and centuries, that precedent was reinforced in the courts in some places, maybe weakened a bit in other places, until we end up where we are today.

But for me? No, I don't think a photo taken by some stranger in Disney World 10 years ago and sitting on his mantle at home, showing his lovely family with my own family off in the background over their shoulders, represents me. I don't feel like I have any kind of presence, legal or financial or of any or sort, in his home. No claim to whatever he wants to do with that photo. If he's a travel agent, and pastes it all over the front of his shop in splendid 5 foot by 8 foot enlargement, more power to him. I'm not gonna feel like I should get 1.3% of his profits from the promotion, just because my mug is on 1.3% of the pixels or something. It's his photo. I'm on it, and a tree is on it, and the sky is on it, and we're all just background. Which is free for him to capture a likeness of in public places.

That's how I feel, anyway.



EDIT and p.s. That gets me wondering whether the law distinguishes between a likeness that is part of the background of a photo, not the main focal point, and a likeness that forms the main subject matter of the image.

Like, do Chris Spielman's legal and financial rights concerning his likeness and image vary depending on whether it's a head and shoulders shot of just him, versus a picture some dude took in the local restaurant with his camera where that dude's mug fills 80% of the picture, but Chris is clearly visible sitting at a nearby table? You know, lots of people take shots of themselves "with" famous people that way. Does that latter shot have all the same financial strings attached as the shot just of Chris? I wonder.
Click to expand...

This is where I think you are getting a little confused. You would have a very difficult time receiving any compensation from your example. It's not being used to profit. It is totally different than using Peyton's image on a sign that also promotes State Farm. As I said before, you can't prevail on all pictures that happen to have your image in it. Just those promoting a business or product.

Edit: to add to this, colleges use images of former players all over their facilities without compensating them. They are adorning their facilities and only promoting their program, which they own the property rights of uniform and logo. They aren't using the images to profit from a sponsorship.
 
Last edited:
#145
#145
bamawriter said:
The idea of an image as representation goes back way beyond any modern legal theory.

King Tut's sarcofagus is an image as representation. The ancient Egyptians had were very clear on the idea of images representing themselves as they wished to be represented. And I doubt the idea began with them.
Click to expand...

Ah, now we're sliding around on oil with the definition of "represents."

If you only mean that the photo "represents" me by recalling me to the mind of people who look at it, then that's one thing.

If you mean that the photo "represents" me in a legal or financial way, that it "stands in" for me, this argument is going circular (because answering whether it "stands in" for me is answering whether I feel a sense of ownership or possession of that photo. Which we've already dead-ended on).

So this is breaking down to an argument of semantics, which are almost always ultimately boring.

But check this out. Here's a cog in the works. A set of identical triplets are born. They grow up, none of them gaining any distinguishing marks of any type on their faces or upper bodies. They look EXACTLY alike at age 22.

A photo is taken of one of them. According to the law, that image is a possession of just one of the triplets. But your use of the word "represents" fails that test. Because that photo very clearly "represents" all three young men to all those who know them. Even their mom admits she can't tell them apart just from the photo, she needs to see them moving around.

So how does that photo "representing" the three lads help with this question of financial rights?
 
#146
#146
VolGee4 said:
This is where I think you are getting a little confused. You would have a very difficult time receiving any compensation from your example. It's not being used to profit. It is totally different than using Peyton's image on a sign that also promotes State Farm. As I said before, you can't prevail on all pictures that happen to have your image in it. Just those promoting a business or product.
Click to expand...

You missed the part in my example where the guy's a travel agent, using the image to promote his business?
 
#147
#147
Follow-up to #145:

And what if Chris Spielman had an identical twin brother, who had HIS photo taken, then gave it to the university to use however it wished? Even knowing they'd use it to "represent" Chris rather than his not-at-all-famous brother.

Now there's a photo that "represents" Chris, but to which he has no financial rights, in spite of the fact that most Ohio State grads are going to assume it's him.

So that case would have to go before the courts, to determine whether Ohio State's intentional use of a photo "representing" Chris (although it's not actually his image) gives him the same financial and legal control....

There are some interesting edges to this body of law, I'm betting. For, you know, pointy-headed lawyers like my brother. :)
 
Last edited:
#149
#149
VFL-82-JP said:
Ah, now we're sliding around on oil with the definition of "represents."

If you only mean that the photo "represents" me by recalling me to the mind of people who look at it, then that's one thing.

If you mean that the photo "represents" me in a legal or financial way, that it "stands in" for me, this argument is going circular (because answering whether it "stands in" for me is answering whether I feel a sense of ownership or possession of that photo. Which we've already dead-ended on).

So this is breaking down to an argument of semantics, which are almost always ultimately boring.
Click to expand...

This entire discussion has been based on semantics.

So how does that photo "representing" the three lads help with this question of financial rights?
Click to expand...

Should any of the three be able to prove that he was the one in the photo, then it's his. If none of them can, then they have the unfortunate problem of identical DNA, and sometimes the law doesn't have an adequate remedy. But the photo can only be a representation of the one in the photo. That any of them might be assumed to be represented doesn't mean that all of them are.
 
#150
#150
VFL-82-JP said:
You missed the part in my example where the guy's a travel agent, using the image to promote his business?
Click to expand...

No I really didn't. It's still a gray area. If he just posted the picture in his office, then it isn't being used to promote his business. It doesn't have a logo of his travel agency in it. The picture of you in the background isn't the reason why he is posting it in his office. It is in direct contrast with using a sole image of someone on a sign with a logo on it, posting it for the public to see, and profiting or promoting that sponsorship or cause.
 
New posts
You must log in or register to reply here.

VN Store



Back
Top