If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(NFL)   Leaf sues Luck over image. It's not what you think, but it's just as bizarre   (nfl.com) divider line 33
    More: Asinine, Andrew Luck, trading cards, draft pick  
•       •       •

3039 clicks; posted to Sports » on 24 Apr 2012 at 11:19 AM (2 years ago)   |  Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook   more»



33 Comments   (+0 »)
   
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

Archived thread
 
2012-04-24 02:08:24 AM  
What I thought was another headline about Ryan. Glad I'm wrong. Kinda surprised about that.

/GO COUGS
 
2012-04-24 11:14:10 AM  
They're actually claiming First Amendment rights to sell pictures of him? That's ballsy.
 
2012-04-24 11:28:00 AM  
greedy whores
 
2012-04-24 11:29:06 AM  

exick: They're actually claiming First Amendment rights to sell pictures of him? That's ballsy.


Well it sounds stupid for the lawyers to put it that way, but it sounds like they do have the rights to sell the cards:

The company said it uses images of Luck from the 2008 U.S. Army All-American Bowl -- a high school all-star game played in San Antonio -- to which it has the rights.

However, Luck's attorneys supposedly made this equally ballsy claim:

Leaf said it brought the suit after the Stanford quarterback's attorney demanded the company stop selling the cards, as they infringed on Luck's "publicity rights," the company said in a statement.

I'm starting to wonder if either side has a real lawyer between them with all these dumb claims and statements.
 
2012-04-24 11:31:26 AM  
If Luck couldn't gain financially from his images from high school, through the NCAA, and until this weekend, then no one should be able to.
That, plus the article is vague and didn't describe how Leaf obtained the image(s) and if there was a signed consent release form (and was it signed by legal guardians and notarized, etc...)
 
2012-04-24 11:36:43 AM  
Wait, why is Leaf the plaintiff? Shouldn't they be the defendant? I'm confused
 
2012-04-24 11:43:29 AM  

Nana's Vibrator: If Luck couldn't gain financially from his images from high school, through the NCAA, and until this weekend, then no one should be able to.
That, plus the article is vague and didn't describe how Leaf obtained the image(s) and if there was a signed consent release form (and was it signed by legal guardians and notarized, etc...)


Well if Luck wins, it'll open that can of worms. Luck and his family didn't need the money, so they never made a stink about it. BUT going forward, there will be some lawyer that will go to some kid in the hood that has colleges begging him to sign, and he'll try to tell him he has a right to the NCAA's gains on his image.

What will happen is both sides will agree on a settlement, so this thing never gets ruled on. The NCAA will make sure of that. Like they want to start paying out on the billions they are making of college athletes.
 
2012-04-24 11:46:15 AM  
I'm gonna laugh so hard if he ends up being a bust. Could happen after looking at what Indianapolis has done to their team.
 
2012-04-24 11:51:42 AM  

lurch_E_bean: Well it sounds stupid for the lawyers to put it that way, but it sounds like they do have the rights to sell the cards:


I'm no lawyer, but by bringing suit claiming infringement on their first amendment rights aren't they countering their own claim to owning rights to the image?
 
2012-04-24 11:54:19 AM  
Trading cards? They still make those? How quaint.
 
2012-04-24 12:11:38 PM  
A Texas-based company ... [claims] its First Amendment right to produce trading cards with his image.

inigo_montoya.jpg
 
2012-04-24 12:25:28 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Wait, why is Leaf the plaintiff? Shouldn't they be the defendant? I'm confused


They're suing Luck before he sues them for using his image. Pre-emptive lawsuits are all the rage.
 
2012-04-24 12:32:06 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: Lost Thought 00: Wait, why is Leaf the plaintiff? Shouldn't they be the defendant? I'm confused

They're suing Luck before he sues them for using his image. Pre-emptive lawsuits are all the rage.


Actually, they are suing Luck AFTER he sent them a C&D to stop printing the cards. Cards with an image that they own the rights to.
 
2012-04-24 12:36:54 PM  
F*ck Luck.
Lawsuit happy biatch.
 
2012-04-24 12:46:45 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: If Luck couldn't gain financially from his images from high school, through the NCAA, and until this weekend, then no one should be able to.
That, plus the article is vague and didn't describe how Leaf obtained the image(s) and if there was a signed consent release form (and was it signed by legal guardians and notarized, etc...)


Obviously my Fark Law DegreeTM is still in the mail, but it sounds like they have likeness rights to any images from the game that Luck played in, regardless of his specific consent. FTA:

The company said it uses images of Luck from the 2008 U.S. Army All-American Bowl -- a high school all-star game played in San Antonio -- to which it has the rights.


///Sounds more like butthurt from Luck's camp that someone will profit from his image and they won't be getting a cut.
 
2012-04-24 01:02:30 PM  
I'm just wondering why you have to countersue for things like this instead of just showing the documentation that says you have the rights to such things and then having it go away.
 
2012-04-24 01:04:01 PM  

Lost Thought 00: Wait, why is Leaf the plaintiff? Shouldn't they be the defendant? I'm confused


It's more common than you might think. Rather than sit around waiting for a lawsuit and wondering how much risk they might be taking if they go ahead and produce the cards, they initiate the suit themselves to get it over with. Even losing would be better than manufacturing a lot of cards, getting sued, and then losing.

It happens quite often in disputes over IP.
 
2012-04-24 01:04:26 PM  
Didn't the same thing happen to Pro Set and Jeff George?
 
2012-04-24 01:07:41 PM  

IAmRight: I'm just wondering why you have to countersue for things like this instead of just showing the documentation that says you have the rights to such things and then having it go away.


Um, that is exactly what they are doing. But instead of showing the documentation to the other company's lawyer who will say "yeah, but, it doesn't cover this specific case", they are showing it to a neutral third party, i.e. the judge, to decide. With a judge's ruling in their pocket it ceases to be a legal "he said, she said".
 
2012-04-24 01:12:35 PM  

czetie: Um, that is exactly what they are doing. But instead of showing the documentation to the other company's lawyer who will say "yeah, but, it doesn't cover this specific case", they are showing it to a neutral third party, i.e. the judge, to decide. With a judge's ruling in their pocket it ceases to be a legal "he said, she said".


Perhaps it's naive of me to assume such a thing could happen in America, but isn't it hypothetically possible that they could show the information to said lawyer, and the lawyer could be honest and go "Well, I'll be damned. Never mind."

I guess that's not how they make their money, though.
 
2012-04-24 01:22:26 PM  

IAmRight: czetie: Um, that is exactly what they are doing. But instead of showing the documentation to the other company's lawyer who will say "yeah, but, it doesn't cover this specific case", they are showing it to a neutral third party, i.e. the judge, to decide. With a judge's ruling in their pocket it ceases to be a legal "he said, she said".

Perhaps it's naive of me to assume such a thing could happen in America, but isn't it hypothetically possible that they could show the information to said lawyer, and the lawyer could be honest and go "Well, I'll be damned. Never mind."

I guess that's not how they make their money, though.


I imagine it must be hypothetically possible. This being America, however, the lawyer is more likely to go "OK, so the facts and the law are on your side, but I'm still going to give you hell in court", and then the other company says "screw it, it's cheaper to settle".

In England it's routine for the losing side in a dispute like this to be obliged to pay the winning side's costs, which makes a lot of this bullshiat go away.
 
2012-04-24 01:23:03 PM  
Sorry, Andrew, you're out of Luck on this one. Photos are the copyright of who took the photo, not who's in the photo. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow headshots of actors, unless you're the one who took the headshot (Photogs who do actor headshots allow the actors to use them for their own publicity, of course). If a rep of Leaf took the photo, it's theirs to do as they wish. If Leaf bought the rights to photos taken at the game, it's theirs to do as they wish.
 
2012-04-24 01:26:27 PM  

ihatedumbpeople: Lost Thought 00: Wait, why is Leaf the plaintiff? Shouldn't they be the defendant? I'm confused

They're suing Luck before he sues them for using his image. Pre-emptive lawsuits are all the rage.


I blame this guy:

static.thehollywoodgossip.com
 
2012-04-24 02:43:44 PM  

IlGreven: Sorry, Andrew, you're out of Luck on this one. Photos are the copyright of who took the photo, not who's in the photo. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow headshots of actors, unless you're the one who took the headshot (Photogs who do actor headshots allow the actors to use them for their own publicity, of course). If a rep of Leaf took the photo, it's theirs to do as they wish. If Leaf bought the rights to photos taken at the game, it's theirs to do as they wish.


Ramble on:
If I'm not mistaken, these days, in certain states, using a recording device on another individual without their consent, even when there is no expectation of privacy, is subject to wiretapping laws (if you can believe it). I wouldn't care on that point, but it is puzzling to not put into effect some rule on either:

1) taking pictures of underaged people without permission (have a seat over there)
or
2) profiting from the labor of people who aren't being paid (labor laws).

The game is a controlled area where the athletes are in a fishbowl and more or less coerced into being available for these pictures - likely without being given proper advisory on the potential consequences (and provided a release form to sign). It's one thing to defend freedom of the press, it's another to exploit children by hiding behind it.

And anyways, what it seems to come down to is that Luck will likely want to bury this photo so he can sell the rights to his official rookie football card to the highest bidder. Because we all know he won't otherwise make any money in this lifetime.
 
2012-04-24 02:54:53 PM  

IAmRight: I'm just wondering why you have to countersue for things like this instead of just showing the documentation that says you have the rights to such things and then having it go away.


It mostly comes down to choice of forum. Declaratory judgment is rare, but striking first means you get a lot more control over where and how the issue gets decided.
 
2012-04-24 03:00:45 PM  
Gorden Gecko Picture anyone?
 
2012-04-24 03:00:45 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: The game is a controlled area where the athletes are in a fishbowl and more or less coerced into being available for these pictures - likely without being given proper advisory on the potential consequences (and provided a release form to sign). It's one thing to defend freedom of the press, it's another to exploit children by hiding behind it.


Well, I guess we don't get photos of local HS games in the paper anymore.
 
2012-04-24 03:08:58 PM  

RadioAaron: What I thought was another headline about Ryan



Ditto.

/GO HUSKIES.
 
2012-04-24 03:16:10 PM  

IAmRight: Nana's Vibrator: The game is a controlled area where the athletes are in a fishbowl and more or less coerced into being available for these pictures - likely without being given proper advisory on the potential consequences (and provided a release form to sign). It's one thing to defend freedom of the press, it's another to exploit children by hiding behind it.

Well, I guess we don't get photos of local HS games in the paper anymore.


Considering the phonecalls I used to get over the 2 or 3 years I was in High School when my picture was in the paper, I would be perfectly fine with that.
 
2012-04-24 03:22:24 PM  

Super Chronic: IAmRight: I'm just wondering why you have to countersue for things like this instead of just showing the documentation that says you have the rights to such things and then having it go away.

It mostly comes down to choice of forum. Declaratory judgment is rare, but striking first means you get a lot more control over where and how the issue gets decided.


And that may be particularly important here. California (where Luck is) state law gives a lot of protection over right of publicity (since they have a lot of interest in protecting Hollywood celebrities). Texas (where Leaf is) state law? Not so much.
And since this isn't a copyright or trademark suit, but over the right of publicity, Leaf desperately wants to stay out of California law. By filing in Texas, even though it'll end up in Federal court, Texas law will control the case.
 
2012-04-24 03:42:45 PM  

Nana's Vibrator: IlGreven: Sorry, Andrew, you're out of Luck on this one. Photos are the copyright of who took the photo, not who's in the photo. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow headshots of actors, unless you're the one who took the headshot (Photogs who do actor headshots allow the actors to use them for their own publicity, of course). If a rep of Leaf took the photo, it's theirs to do as they wish. If Leaf bought the rights to photos taken at the game, it's theirs to do as they wish.

Ramble on:
If I'm not mistaken, these days, in certain states, using a recording device on another individual without their consent, even when there is no expectation of privacy, is subject to wiretapping laws (if you can believe it). I wouldn't care on that point, but it is puzzling to not put into effect some rule on either:

1) taking pictures of underaged people without permission (have a seat over there)
or
2) profiting from the labor of people who aren't being paid (labor laws).

The game is a controlled area where the athletes are in a fishbowl and more or less coerced into being available for these pictures - likely without being given proper advisory on the potential consequences (and provided a release form to sign). It's one thing to defend freedom of the press, it's another to exploit children by hiding behind it.

And anyways, what it seems to come down to is that Luck will likely want to bury this photo so he can sell the rights to his official rookie football card to the highest bidder. Because we all know he won't otherwise make any money in this lifetime.


If I had to guess, I'd bet the organizers of the game had lawyers make sure commercial photography at the game wouldn't have the legal issues you're trying to bring up.

You think there were no wavers signed by the players or their families?
 
2012-04-24 03:50:55 PM  

davidphogan: Nana's Vibrator: IlGreven: Sorry, Andrew, you're out of Luck on this one. Photos are the copyright of who took the photo, not who's in the photo. This is one of the reasons why Wikipedia doesn't allow headshots of actors, unless you're the one who took the headshot (Photogs who do actor headshots allow the actors to use them for their own publicity, of course). If a rep of Leaf took the photo, it's theirs to do as they wish. If Leaf bought the rights to photos taken at the game, it's theirs to do as they wish.

Ramble on:
If I'm not mistaken, these days, in certain states, using a recording device on another individual without their consent, even when there is no expectation of privacy, is subject to wiretapping laws (if you can believe it). I wouldn't care on that point, but it is puzzling to not put into effect some rule on either:

1) taking pictures of underaged people without permission (have a seat over there)
or
2) profiting from the labor of people who aren't being paid (labor laws).

The game is a controlled area where the athletes are in a fishbowl and more or less coerced into being available for these pictures - likely without being given proper advisory on the potential consequences (and provided a release form to sign). It's one thing to defend freedom of the press, it's another to exploit children by hiding behind it.

And anyways, what it seems to come down to is that Luck will likely want to bury this photo so he can sell the rights to his official rookie football card to the highest bidder. Because we all know he won't otherwise make any money in this lifetime.

If I had to guess, I'd bet the organizers of the game had lawyers make sure commercial photography at the game wouldn't have the legal issues you're trying to bring up.

You think there were no wavers signed by the players or their families?


Purely guessing, I'd say there were waivers regarding injury and liability. License and rights to profit on reproduction of photos or likenesses - that would seem a bit far. But this was Texas and HS football is much larger there than it is in my neck o' the woods, and the stakes are much higher. Up here we might just get an 'attaboy from Doug Flutie's third cousin.
 
2012-04-26 12:08:07 PM  
Luck, Leaf, litigate over Luck's look.

/Thank you, Fox In Socks.
 
Displayed 33 of 33 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest


This thread is archived, and closed to new comments.

Continue Farking
Submit a Link »






Report