OT-Ed O'Bannon vs the NCAA

Submitted by BigWeb17 on
I saw this article and after reading it I can only imagine what would happen if the NCAA has to retroactively pay all persons involved, wow. How would the NCAA survive? What would be some of the major repercussions? I am not saying its right or wrong but hypothetically discussing the possibilities. Anyway, my first attempt at writing a topic for the board. http://rivals.yahoo.com/ncaa/basketball/news?slug=dw-obannon020810&prov…
MGoBoard

Tater

February 9th, 2010 at 8:33 AM ^

I'll bet the wording is changed by next year just to play it safe. Signing away rights in perpetuity will be part of the contract. The real issue here is that O'Bannon is a car salesman who should have used his scholly to get a degree and a better job. UCLA is no Michigan, but a degree would certainly carry some degree of clout. Also, if he is going to be a salesman, why not do it where he played and take advantage of his celebrity status?

Joined: 08/13/2008

MGoPoints: 30584

DetroitBlue

February 9th, 2010 at 8:46 AM ^

I'm pretty sure UCLA is consistently ranked on par with, or maybe slightly ahead of Michigan in the USNWR rankings. Obviously, we all think the world of UM, but a degree from UCLA is nothing to scoff at.

Joined: 07/02/2008

MGoPoints: 30312

ijohnb

February 9th, 2010 at 8:46 AM ^

approximately....nowhere. Surviving a Motion to Dismiss in this regard means simply that you at least state a viable claim, assuming all facts are true and taken in the light most favorable to the charging party. Essentially that the Plaintiff has stated full sentences and used correct puncuation. Go away O'Bannor. And what is the sticker on a new Toyota Prius..... Free.... Nice!!!

Joined: 09/21/2009

MGoPoints: 69986

Noahdb

February 9th, 2010 at 9:12 AM ^

...but I'd be tempted to take the facial images of those players from the game and blow them up to poster-size. I'd ask O'Bannon to pick out which one is him. I'm reasonably certain that he (nor anyone else) could do it with any degree of accuracy. You own your own face. But Ed O'Bannon does not own his jersey number. Nor does he own "'95 UCLA Bruins" and he doesn't own "6'9 forward." A pixelated image made to vaguely resemble a black kid playing basketball is hardly a "likeness." But...i'm not a lawyer.

Joined: 07/21/2008

MGoPoints: 477

Noahdb

February 9th, 2010 at 9:21 AM ^

...on the Laettner play, if the argument is that Laettner and the other guys deserve compensation for the NCAA making money off of that -- why does it stop with the players? If I'm sitting in the stands behind Laettner and I'm clearly visible, why wouldn't I deserve compensation? OK, I'm probably out of focus if I'm doing that. Here's a better example -- in 1991 against Notre Dame, Desmond Howard made a diving catch in the endzone. Beautiful catch, it got replayed 1,000 times on highlight shows. He didn't strike the Heisman pose, but it was probably the second or third best play he had that year. On the replay, there's a guy standing behind Howard who is clearly visible. The reason I remember him is because he looks so silly. He's got a Michael Bolton-esque mullet, a mustache, he's wearing acid washed shorts and a pink polo. (and yes, that was pretty stupid-looking...even for 1991) Why doesn't that guy deserve compensation if that play is shown again?

Joined: 07/21/2008

MGoPoints: 477

Noahdb

February 9th, 2010 at 9:22 AM ^

"I'm reasonably certain that he (nor anyone else) could do it with any degree of accuracy. " Sorry, that should read, "...he (nor anyone else) could NOT do it..."

Joined: 07/21/2008

MGoPoints: 477

Blazefire

February 9th, 2010 at 10:15 AM ^

Should they win, my best guess is that a few things happen: A) The NCAA and associated entities will request that the ruling only extend from that point forward, as previously, they were making an obvious effort (eliminating names on jerseys in games and so on) to ensure they weren't profiting directly from t he likenesses. That would prevent them having to back pay every former player in every sport that's ever been replayed on TV with commercials and so on, forever. That's fair. Most of the time when something is newly defined, things from before that definition are "grandfathered" in. B) All players competing in any NCAA supported sport or event, anywhere, would sign something to the effect that the images, audio recordings, stats, etcetera compiled while under said contract (playing career, including non-revenue sports) are offered free commercial, promotional or other use to the NCAA and associated entities, in perpetuity. C) Player likenesses or information not taken directly from their career (I.E. video game likenesses) from that point forward will pay royalties to the player reflected. This is easy enough to get around. In all future games, reverse a players race or something, and then include a skin tone adjustment tool for the end users. Presto - A lot of paperwork and headaches for NO MONEY at all to change hands.

Joined: 04/17/2009

MGoPoints: 25038

Noahdb

February 9th, 2010 at 10:24 AM ^

I'd guess that before another game could be televised, you'd have to get every person on every college team to agree to sign a waiver, giving up any future rights to compensation. You'd have to include language on the back of a ticket, like they do in baseball (for getting popped by a foul ball). I'm trying to think of adequate parallels. Let's say that you have written and recorded a song called "Hey, Girl." I want to use that song to play over a scene in my new movie where a 12 year old girl gets gang-raped. I ask you and you give me a very firm, "Hell no!" Alright...so I go out and find a group that sounds like yours and I basically pay them to go record a cover version of "Hey, Girl." They have to pay a small license fee to ASCAP before they record the song, but you have no authority to stop them from doing it. Furthermore, they can let me use their version of the song without any problems, right? If that song ends up on the soundtrack album, you're due a portion of the royalties for publishing rights, I think. Again -- not a lawyer -- but I think that's correct. In the O'Bannon case, they aren't using HIS likeness and they aren't using his name. They are using an extremeley loose facsimile of him. It's an image of him that would be unrecognizable without some prior knowledge of who played on the 1995 UCLA team. (Don't those EA Sports games use about 15 generic "face" images?) To me, that's like a cover version of a song. The thing that copyright law protects is the explicit expression of an idea -- not the idea itself. I can go out and paint all the images I want of the aftermath of the Luftwaffe's attack on Guernica. I can paint funky images of hookers in Avignon. I can paint 1000 pictures of Dora Maar. But when I start making explicit copies of Picasso's paintings, I can't sell them (I don't think). So, I'd think that would cover the video game. The TV issue...the question is whether or not the NCAA had the authority to sell those rights to the networks, correct? The NCAA is basically made up of the member institutions. And they are the ones giving out the scholarships. When performers stage concerts, even free concerts, stuff like recording rights and film rights are always worked out in advance. I don't know how DA Pennebaker worked out Monterey Pop in 1967 (where everyone but Ravi Shankar played for free), but I'd have a hard time believing that the estate of Jimi Hendrix or Mama Cass could file a claim 42 years later asking for compensation.

Joined: 07/21/2008

MGoPoints: 477

aenima0311

February 9th, 2010 at 1:08 PM ^

If rulings like this go through, it will kill the realism of college video games. Without the realism, there is no incentive to play them. Nobody wants to play with made-up players. Boo. You got free college and the opportunity to play college athletics... cry me a river. I never thought I'd be defending the NCAA either.

Joined: 11/21/2008

MGoPoints: 1054