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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
"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."
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.
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.
He meant both those guys- Brian is nothing if not rational and knows this roster like the back of his hand. I'm thinkin he probably wants the best odds.
You have a valid contract. They have guaranteed you a room for that date. It's not like it's worth it for you to sue them over $85, though. The thing you have going for you is that a big corporation like super 8 (or whoever owns it) has to have a policy in place to deal with overbooking because if it screws a large amount of people over it's gonna have to deal with a PR shitstorm and (depending on how many people it screws over) an expensive class action that it would have to settle (due to said shitstorm). So, yea. No guarantees on how great (or close) the substitute room will be, but you are guaranteed some minimum level of accommodation.
It's interesting going through this thread after reading Klosterman's article this week. He really hit the nail on the head.
The crux here, the issue driving this whole "Tebow Thing," is the matter of faith. It's the ongoing choice between embracing a warm feeling that makes no sense or a cold pragmatism that's probably true. And with Tebow, that illogical warm feeling keeps working out. It pays off. The upside to secular thinking is that — in theory — your skepticism will prove correct. Your rightness might be emotionally unsatisfying, but it confirms a stable understanding of the universe. Sports fans who love statistics fall into this camp. People who reject cognitive dissonance build this camp and find the firewood. But Tebow wrecks all that, because he makes blind faith a viable option. His faith in God, his followers' faith in him — it all defies modernity. This is why people care so much. He is making people wonder if they should try to believe things they don't actually believe.
This whole thing has gotten very annoying, but mostly because so many people have missed the forest for the trees. When you look at what's really happening here it's one of the most interesting things that's happened in sports in recent memory- it's a story about the way we think these days, and it's not a cumbersome Terrence Malick movie- it's unfolding in the language of football.
Well he didn't take the Chris Paul trade (PSYCH!) too well, and he's a pretty emotional dude. Now that they're out of the CP3 sweepstakes, it makes sense to turn a talented but volatile player with a lot of baggage (who was real pissed that you thought it would make sense to trade HIM for the best pg in the league) into a fungible trade asset so they can go get Howard.
Shanon Brown's gone. He's an unrestricted free agent. The rumor is the Suns. Steve Blake had a rough year last year, we'll see what he does under Brown's system. If they make the Howard trade I would think it's Bynum and a 1st rd pick.
How can you be so sure that it hurts us. Clemson takes the AQ spot for the ACC. Virginia Tech has the same amount of losses as us and has played a dramatically weaker schedule. They've played one team that's currently in the BCS rankings and that team has beaten them by 20+ points, twice. Meanwhile, we have a 4 touchdown win against the team that was ahead of Clemson in the BCS heading into this week.
I was thinking about this, too. The computers don't like the hokies at all--they've played a bullshit ACC schedule. They've got one quasi-impressive win on the road at Georgia Tech, and this would make two losses to Clemson, one at home and one at a neutral site. I could see the voters losing all faith and dropping them far, particularly if it ends up being a convincing loss.
Recent Comments
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.
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.
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.
http://www.nytimes.com/2015/09/11/sports/football/a-1-point-score-in-the-nfl-now-its-possible.html?_r=0
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.
Sheeeeeiit. That's all you had to say.
"Turnover-forcing." You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it means
I'd say these first five minutes took the chances from 2-10%.
8 year olds, Dude.
Nicely done, sir.
http://www.hulu.com/watch/3533/saturday-night-live-the-olympia-restaurant
Illusions, dad. You don't have time for my illusions.
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.
More NW perspective from Wilbon:
http://espn.go.com/chicago/story/_/id/7596489/northwestern-win-territory-quest-first-ncaa-tournament-bid
There were horses, and a man on fire, and I killed a guy with a trident.
Yea, I stabbed a man in the heart.
http://theauburneagle.com/WEAForum/index.php?topic=35198.90
Looks pretty fishy to me. The sources are flimsy, but I'm guessing this is where he got 12 EST from.
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/
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.
http://www.copyhype.com/2012/01/hey-what-happened-to-wikipedia-an-intro-to-sopa/
http://www.copyhype.com/2011/11/sopa-new-remedies-for-existing-liability/
http://www.theatlantic.com/business/archive/2012/01/how-much-does-file-sharing-resemble-stealing-and-does-it-matter/251277/
http://www.raizecollective.com/wolverine-blog/celebrate-sparty-no.gif
"Horrieous use of TOs"
Novak's Dunk:
Beast Mode
Well, we didn't make it easy on ourselves but we kept fighting.
YOU HAVE TO BE JOKING ME
Your Timeouts can't save you from Novak
Novak!
Please don't give up a three out of the timeout.
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.
MOAR Vogrich, less McLimans.
He meant both those guys- Brian is nothing if not rational and knows this roster like the back of his hand. I'm thinkin he probably wants the best odds.
Perhaps
From UMhoops:
Nice effort. Need to get Timmy hittin his threes again, this is a rough slump.
Watford
You have a valid
You have a valid contract. They have guaranteed you a room for that date. It's not like it's worth it for you to sue them over $85, though. The thing you have going for you is that a big corporation like super 8 (or whoever owns it) has to have a policy in place to deal with overbooking because if it screws a large amount of people over it's gonna have to deal with a PR shitstorm and (depending on how many people it screws over) an expensive class action that it would have to settle (due to said shitstorm). So, yea. No guarantees on how great (or close) the substitute room will be, but you are guaranteed some minimum level of accommodation.
AKUNNE!
http://www.grantland.com/story/_/id/7319858/the-people-hate-tim-tebow
It's interesting going through this thread after reading Klosterman's article this week. He really hit the nail on the head.
This whole thing has gotten very annoying, but mostly because so many people have missed the forest for the trees. When you look at what's really happening here it's one of the most interesting things that's happened in sports in recent memory- it's a story about the way we think these days, and it's not a cumbersome Terrence Malick movie- it's unfolding in the language of football.
Well he didn't take the Chris Paul trade (PSYCH!) too well, and he's a pretty emotional dude. Now that they're out of the CP3 sweepstakes, it makes sense to turn a talented but volatile player with a lot of baggage (who was real pissed that you thought it would make sense to trade HIM for the best pg in the league) into a fungible trade asset so they can go get Howard.
23-11 with 8 minutes left in the 1st half.
Still can't find a stream, but audio here as always
Throw it down, Big Man, Throw it down.
Shanon Brown's gone.
Shanon Brown's gone. He's an unrestricted free agent. The rumor is the Suns. Steve Blake had a rough year last year, we'll see what he does under Brown's system. If they make the Howard trade I would think it's Bynum and a 1st rd pick.
*Getting blown out for the second time by the only ranked team they've played (Georgia Tech caveat).
How can you be so sure that it hurts us. Clemson takes the AQ spot for the ACC. Virginia Tech has the same amount of losses as us and has played a dramatically weaker schedule. They've played one team that's currently in the BCS rankings and that team has beaten them by 20+ points, twice. Meanwhile, we have a 4 touchdown win against the team that was ahead of Clemson in the BCS heading into this week.
It's the middle of the second quarter. Your quarterback should have more passing yards than your running back.
I was thinking about this, too. The computers don't like the hokies at all--they've played a bullshit ACC schedule. They've got one quasi-impressive win on the road at Georgia Tech, and this would make two losses to Clemson, one at home and one at a neutral site. I could see the voters losing all faith and dropping them far, particularly if it ends up being a convincing loss.
Agreed. That 15-footer from the elbow was very encouraging.
If we can get this kind of production from Morgan consistently going into Big Ten play we'll be in real nice shape.
Akunne is 3/3 behind the arc this year. Just sayin
cue belusci