- Member for
- 4 years 7 weeks
|6 weeks 11 hours ago||Copyright vs. Right of Publicity/False Indication of Endorsement||
The fact that this is ESPN's copyrighted image is a totally separate matter. Unauthorized commercial use of a person's likeness is actionable regardless of the image's provenance or the method by which the unauthorized user obtained the image.
None of the foregoing should be construed as legal advice.
|6 weeks 11 hours ago||Move Quickly||
Both you (Cincy Shirts is using your picture in the background to advertise the shirt) and your friend (more obviously) have solid claims under federal law (Section 43(a) of the Lanham Act), Ohio law (Ohio Rev. Code Ann. sec. 2741, and common law), and Michigan law (common law).
You should hire a lawyer ASAP, advise CS of these claims, and, if they do not promptly address the issue, file suit in federal court (with your state claims under supplemental jurisdiction). It's worth considering Ohio as a venue, because the statutory right of publicity claim in Ohio carries more attractive remedies than the common law claim under Michigan law, though, of course you risk some bias given the subject matter. It appears that CS has a longstanding online business, and has more than likely made significant sales in the state of Michigan, so you should have your pick of the two jurisdictions.
Find a lawyer, quickly, and hold CS' feet to the fire.
None of the foregoing should be construed as legal advice.
|8 weeks 4 days ago||NFL Rule Change||
At the beginning of the season the NYT ran a fairly detailed article (below) on an NFL Rule Change that allows for this type of one-point-play. I assume from the above that that rule was already in place in the NCAA.
|12 weeks 5 days ago||Defamation||
A defamation suit here would have exceedingly little chance of success: because Brady is a public figure he would need to show that the NFL acted with actual malice: actual knowledge of the falsity of its allegations or reckless disregard for their truth or falsity.
The Wells Report, for all its (many) faults, covers their ass on the reckless disregard prong, and since there was at least some corpus of evidence that supported the finding and the investigation, it would be very difficult to expect a jury to find that the NFL knew its allegations were capital-f false when it made them.
I agree with you, but the standard of proof would not be on Brady's side, and I would be very surprised if he filed such an action.
|2 years 13 weeks ago||Sheeeeeiit. That's all you||
Sheeeeeiit. That's all you had to say.
|2 years 35 weeks ago||"Turnover-forcing." You keep||
"Turnover-forcing." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
|2 years 36 weeks ago||I'd say these first five||
I'd say these first five minutes took the chances from 2-10%.
|3 years 13 weeks ago||8 year olds, Dude.||
8 year olds, Dude.
|3 years 18 weeks ago||Nicely done, sir.||
Nicely done, sir.
|3 years 35 weeks ago||http://www.hulu.com/watch/353|
|3 years 38 weeks ago||Illusions, dad. You don't||
Illusions, dad. You don't have time for my illusions.
|3 years 38 weeks ago||Everything's fine||
Advanced Metrics are useful, but not perfect. Satire is funny, even when the position it's arguing for isn't as strong as the position it's arguing against. Everything's fine.
|3 years 40 weeks ago||More NW perspective from||
More NW perspective from Wilbon:
|3 years 42 weeks ago||(No subject)||
|3 years 43 weeks ago||There were horses, and a man||
There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||Yea, I stabbed a man in the||
Yea, I stabbed a man in the heart.
|3 years 43 weeks ago||Auburn message board||
Looks pretty fishy to me. The sources are flimsy, but I'm guessing this is where he got 12 EST from.
|3 years 45 weeks ago||Kinsella puts forth an||
Kinsella puts forth an interesting argument. It seems to me, though, that a system for protection of IP based solely on contract would be a less efficient (more easily circumvented) way of accomplishing the same thing. If you're worried about semantics, I'm fine with not calling it intellectual property- it's not property and it's not scarce. (Jefferson and tapers and so on).
The idea is that we, as a society, want these things to exist. Without copyright, patent, trademark, etc..., authors, artists, and technologists have little incentive to create. I think we can agree that the current system fails in matching the required amount of incentive with the actual costs an author or technologist incurs in creating, but we do want art and music and technological progress, and we do need to incentivize their production.
Posner and Landes: http://cyber.law.harvard.edu/IPCoop/89land1.html
"Where widespread distribution is necessary to generate an adequate return to the author or where the work is resold or publicly performed, contractual prohibitions may not prevent widespread copying. Thus, the greater the potential market for a work, the greater the need for copyright protection."
Bill Patry on the matching problem: http://volokh.com/author/bill-patry/
|3 years 45 weeks ago||I know I'm not reading the chi of the board very well, but...||
This is not true. SOPA and PIPA require a threshold showing that the targeted site is dedicated to infringement. They do not enact a new notice and takedown system. A trivial instance of infringement (or several) will not meet that burden. These provisions should be tightened, as reddit argues, but even in their current state they would not allow for a slope as slippery as the one you (or they) describe.
I don't think SOPA/PIPA should be passed in their current form, mostly because all they do is provide new remedies- they do nothing to alter the current (problematic) system of liability.
You don't need to mischaracterize the bills, as so many have, to convince people that we can do better.
The following links are from a well-regarded pro-copyright blog written by a recent law school grad. I don't completely agree with his take, but he's done a reasonably faithful job of breaking down the bills. The truth probably lies somewhere in between the popular account and what he's arguing for here. If you're already convinced about SOPA (and about this post), I don't want you to get any more angry and yell "Internet Death" at me. You've got this one figured out, so go ahead and skip the links.
If you've got any interest in reading a discussion of the bills not provided by reddit, google, or wikipedia, well then you might want to give it a shot. Above all, please read the bills.
|3 years 45 weeks ago||Is rivalrous-ness the core of property rights?|
|3 years 45 weeks ago||http://www.raizecollective.co|
|3 years 45 weeks ago||"Horrieous use of TOs"||
"Horrieous use of TOs"
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Novak's Dunk: Beast Mode||
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Well, we didn't make it easy||
Well, we didn't make it easy on ourselves but we kept fighting.
|3 years 46 weeks ago||YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING ME||
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING ME
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Embed|
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Your Timeouts can't save you||
Your Timeouts can't save you from Novak
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Novak!||
|3 years 46 weeks ago||Please don't give up a three||
Please don't give up a three out of the timeout.
|3 years 46 weeks ago||THJ really steppin up.||
THJ really steppin up. If we don't start playing hard on defense he's gonna need to go truly HAM for us to pull this one out.
Encouraging news on Horford today. With Smot, Novak, and Morgan in perpetual foul trouble (even at home apparently), and McLimans being McLimans, we could really use Horford down the home stretch.