Chris Spielman Sues Alma Mater Ohio State

[bamawriter]

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.

Actually, if the photo is intended to represent Chris, then it does, whether or not he is the individual in the photo. The law in this instance comes does to a standard of reasonableness. If a reasonable person could infer that the image is of Chris Spielman, then the image represents Chris Spielman. And this is not a difficult inference since the banner has his name on it.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Actually, if the photo is intended to represent Chris, then it does, whether or not he is the individual in the photo. The law in this instance comes does to a standard of reasonableness. If a reasonable person could infer that the image is of Chris Spielman, then the image represents Chris Spielman. And this is not a difficult inference since the banner has his name on it.

So you could put a picture of Heath Shuler up with Chris' name under it, and if you put it far enough up in the air, and blur the photo just the right amount, Chris still has financial rights?

How much could Heath get out of it? He have rights, too?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

This entire discussion has been based on semantics.



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.

Every conversation in the history of the world, written or verbal, is "based on" semantics. By definition. Semantics being, you know, the meaning of words. And words being how we exercise the skill of conversation.

But that's different from a conversation turning into one focused on semantics. As the bit about "represents" is starting to.

break/break

So now you've turned to the legal use of the word "represents." Which does not apply to King Tut's coffin cover. It does not represent him in any legal sense, it only reminds people of him. Just like the photo of the triplets reminds everyone who knows them of all three.

So you gotta stop flipping back and forth between meanings of the word "represents," or this will truly be nothing but a semantics discussion. == Boring.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

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.

Are you a lawyer? Is your opinion based on a study of the body of law around this issue, or is this your perspective?

I've been clear throughout the conversation that my perspective is nothing other than my perspective. But I'm intensely interested in hearing more from folks who have studied the law and know in detail of what they speak on this subject.

This 5-foot-by-8-foot enlarged photo is on the plate glass window at the front of the travel agent's store. It' advertises, in big letters, wonderful fun-filled trips to Disney World for the whole family. Hundreds of folks walk by the downtown store every day and see that image.

So you're saying my likeness is not the main focus of the photo (his family is), so I have no legal rights? That does in fact answer a question I asked earlier, so thanks for that. But how well-founded is your viewpoint? Lawyer who has handled cases of this nature? Not being snooty (I'm no lawyer), just wondering how much credence to give your response.

 

[bamawriter]

So you could put a picture of Heath Shuler up with Chris' name under it, and if you put it far enough up in the air, and blur the photo just the right amount, Chris still has financial rights?

How much could Heath get out of it? He have rights, too?

If you blur the photo to the point that you cannot tell who it is, but then identify the person as Chris Spielman, then it represents Chris Spielman.

However, if Heath Shuler could somehow prove that the photo is, in fact, of him, then he could insist that the image be corrected or removed.

 

[bamawriter]

Every conversation in the history of the world, written or verbal, is "based on" semantics. By definition. Semantics being, you know, the meaning of words. And words being how we exercise the skill of conversation.

But that's different from a conversation turning into one focused on semantics. As the bit about "represents" is starting to.

break/break

So now you've turned to the legal use of the word "represents." Which does not apply to King Tut's coffin cover. It does not represent him in any legal sense, it only reminds people of him. Just like the photo of the triplets reminds everyone who knows them of all three.

So you gotta stop flipping back and forth between meanings of the word "represents," or this will truly be nothing but a semantics discussion. == Boring.

Actually I distinguished between the legal and practical meaning of representation. That the law cannot determine who it represents doesn't mean that someone isn't represented.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Are you a lawyer, bamawriter? And have you handled cases concerning this subject?

Again, not asking to be contrary. I truly just want to know how much credence to give your responses. I'm learning from you, but need to know if what I'm learning is sitting on bedrock, or just another guy's opinion.

(I'm not. Not in any way. Everything here is just one dude's perspective).

 

[VFL-82-JP]

If you blur the photo to the point that you cannot tell who it is, but then identify the person as Chris Spielman, then it represents Chris Spielman.

However, if Heath Shuler could somehow prove that the photo is, in fact, of him, then he could insist that the image be corrected or removed.

So the PHOTO isn't even necessarily the important part. It's the name "Chris Spielman" across the bottom. It could be a photo of a chicken sandwich and say "Chris Spielman" across the bottom, and Chris has a case for some financial and legal control over the use of his name.

A photo, a likeness or image is, then, just another kind of name. A way of naming a person.

Right?

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Alright, I'm off to bed. You guys will have to carry on without me (though it seems maybe you left for bed yourselves already!). Thanks for the interesting conversation.

 

[bamawriter]

Are you a lawyer, bamawriter? And have you handled cases concerning this subject?

No. Though I'm related to several lawyers, judges, and law professors. I had to take some journalism-specific law classes, but I am not going to pretend that I know enough to pass the bar. I had a professor who told us that the most important thing a journalist can learn is when to issue a retraction, and how.

Again, not asking to be contrary. I truly just want to know how much credence to give your responses. I'm learning from you, but need to know if what I'm learning is sitting on bedrock, or just another guy's opinion.

(I'm not. Not in any way. Everything here is just one dude's perspective).

By no means should you accept my thoughts as anything close to legal expertise. I might be a slightly more knowledgable layperson, at best.

 

[bamawriter]

So the PHOTO isn't even necessarily the important part. It's the name "Chris Spielman" across the bottom. It could be a photo of a chicken sandwich and say "Chris Spielman" across the bottom, and Chris has a case for some financial and legal control over the use of his name.

A photo, a likeness or image is, then, just another kind of name. A way of naming a person.

Right?

I don't think your chicken sandwich example quite works. But your general inquiry is right. "Name and likeness" are typically combined in a legal sense because they are both representations of a person.

 

[VolGee4]

Are you a lawyer? Is your opinion based on a study of the body of law around this issue, or is this your perspective?

I've been clear throughout the conversation that my perspective is nothing other than my perspective. But I'm intensely interested in hearing more from folks who have studied the law and know in detail of what they speak on this subject.

This 5-foot-by-8-foot enlarged photo is on the plate glass window at the front of the travel agent's store. It' advertises, in big letters, wonderful fun-filled trips to Disney World for the whole family. Hundreds of folks walk by the downtown store every day and see that image.

So you're saying my likeness is not the main focus of the photo (his family is), so I have no legal rights? That does in fact answer a question I asked earlier, so thanks for that. But how well-founded is your viewpoint? Lawyer who has handled cases of this nature? Not being snooty (I'm no lawyer), just wondering how much credence to give your response.

This is not my area of expertise, but I am an attorney. Many legal issues are fact specific, and there are hardly any "blanket rules" with things like this. The point is that not every use of a "likeness" is used the same. You have no damages to win in those that are randomly taken in a personal picture that is not used to promote a product or cause. I would also argue that if you are in the background of a picture of a family that is used to promote a travel agency, your "likeness" is not what is being used to promote it. You were just randomly there in a public setting. Now, if you were the sole image used to promote the agency, then that is a whole different story,

Look, I know you are trying to talk about how society views things as this and that, but I am not a philosopher and don't want to be. The legal industry takes a real world scenario, applies the law, and a determination is made one way or the other.

 

[omghulkhands]

Shucks, I am late to the party.

I wanted to get JP's thoughts on intellectual property rights, patents, counterfeiting and a host of other things.

 

[Jxn Vol]

Shucks, I am late to the party.

I wanted to get JP's thoughts on intellectual property rights, patents, counterfeiting and a host of other things.

He is hanging out between societal norms and cartoon land. He thinks he is clever but is really just an idiot. Maybe he will fin a hobby. I just read all of this crap. I'm not impressed.

 

[volfannbama]

Literally every college football player that was represented in the EA Sports franchise got a settlement from the class action suit. In the last 20 years are so, it's harder to find a player who hasn't had a claim against his school.

Further, what is "silly" about insisting that your alma mater not use you in an advertisement for a company that qualifies as your competitor?

When all players get paid as much as Bama players, they wont have to worry about it.

 

[VFL-82-JP]

Shucks, I am late to the party.

I wanted to get JP's thoughts on intellectual property rights, patents, counterfeiting and a host of other things.

That hurts my head just reading, Hulk.

He is hanging out between societal norms and cartoon land. He thinks he is clever but is really just an idiot. Maybe he will fin a hobby. I just read all of this crap. I'm not impressed.

I don't think I'm being clever, and I'm not trying to impress anyone. I just think the way we treat images, legally, is weird, and wonder why our society went down the path it did. I do appreciate the kind words.

 

[bamawriter]

When all players get paid as much as Bama players, they wont have to worry about it.

I agree. Why is every other school so stingy?

 

[TUSKtimes]

I applaud Chris for his insistence in this one. Universities have legally insisted on their brand for the longest. I don't recall university members getting overly sentimental about an alumnus who they felt violated their sacred trademark claims.

 

[Burger]

Boston College sent a Cease and Desist order to my old high school for a similar logo design.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This is just another attempt at bringing the discussion of paying players back up, IMO.

So what are you saying?

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

This is just another attempt at bringing the discussion of paying players back up, IMO.

So what are you saying? Should they be paid?

 

[The Ron Mexico]

I would like to use this thread to advise the elementary school I attended that they may use my likeness in an advertisement about what not to do.

 

[Rasputin_Vol]

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.

Do you have an issue with that?