Jump to content
[[Template core/front/custom/_customHeader is throwing an error. This theme may be out of date. Run the support tool in the AdminCP to restore the default theme.]]

tom brady = white water


Azazello1313
 Share

Recommended Posts

I'm no lawyer, so someone who is please explain this situation to me.

 

Brady is widely recognized as a public figure, and is performing at a public event. The site is making no claim of endorsement by Brady. This seems very similar to a newspaper using images of people in its paper, in that the paper makes money by using those images in combination with its stories but the images are not considered endorsements and are used without consent of the person who was photographed, or in countless fan rags of numerous topics using public images of public persons to fill their pages.

 

I don't see where Brady was injured, nor do I see where Yahoo profited specifically because of Brady's image unless Brady's legal team can prove that users were swayed into using Yahoo's service because of the image (a difficult prospect to be sure).

 

Like I said, I'm no legal eagle, so explain to me where this differs from something like say, in the '70s Tiger Beat using a picture of Shawn Cassidy eating at a restaurant, or Playboy publishing some co-ed's tits when she flashes them at spring break, or any other of a plethora of magazines using pics of celebs in public forums.

Edited by Bronco Billy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm no lawyer, so someone who is please explain this situation to me.

 

Brady is widely recognized as a public figure, and is performing at a public event. The site is making no claim of endorsement by Brady. This seems very similar to a newspaper using images of people in its paper, in that the paper makes money by using those images in combination with its stories but the images are not considered endorsements and are used without consent of the person who was photographed, or in countless fan rags of numerous topics using public images of public persons to fill their pages.

 

I don't see where Brady was injured, nor do I see where Yahoo profited specifically because of Brady's image unless Brady's legal team can prove that users were swayed into using Yahoo's service because of the image (a difficult prospect to be sure).

 

Like I said, I'm no legal eagle, so explain to me where this differs from something like say, in the '70s Tiger Beat using a picture of Shawn Cassidy eating at a restaurant, or Playboy publishing some co-ed's tits when she flashes them at spring break, or any other of a plethora of magazines using pics of celebs in public forums.

 

 

Yahoo is using Brady's image to sell their game. It is not in any way like a newspaper reporting on a team. If a company were to use an image of Brady in an advertisement within a newspaper they could be subject to the same action. Different laws apply.

 

the 'injury' here is similar to a trademark injury. A company that holds a trademark must actively defend that trademark from piracy in order to maintain it. If another entity uses the trademark consistantly and it can be shown that the holder has knowledge and does not defend the possesion, they can lose the trademark because they have represented by their actions that it is not really their trademark.

 

Brady and other public figures get paid to endorse products. If they allow companies to use their image to sell a product without compensation, then why should other companies pay the athlete for endorsement?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo is using Brady's image to sell their game. It is not in any way like a newspaper reporting on a team. If a company were to use an image of Brady in an advertisement within a newspaper they could be subject to the same action. Different laws apply.

 

the 'injury' here is similar to a trademark injury. A company that holds a trademark must actively defend that trademark from piracy in order to maintain it. If another entity uses the trademark consistantly and it can be shown that the holder has knowledge and does not defend the possesion, they can lose the trademark because they have represented by their actions that it is not really their trademark.

 

Brady and other public figures get paid to endorse products. If they allow companies to use their image to sell a product without compensation, then why should other companies pay the athlete for endorsement?

 

 

I understand the defense of trademark requirement.

 

Okay, so explain to me how it is not like the "Tiger Beat" scenario I presented, or any other picture taken by papparazzi and put in "Us" or the Enquirer or any other similar rag.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always gets dicey when you use images. Having Brady on their advertising is hardly endorsement by him unless he alone is standing there pointing at a PC screen with Yahoo on it. If they have him in the normal action of a football game with other players showing as well, cannot see how that is a problem as it should have been covered with the millions that Yahoo gives to the NFLPA. But if it is him alone, then he probably has a case.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the defense of trademark requirement.

 

Okay, so explain to me how it is not like the "Tiger Beat" scenario I presented, or any other picture taken by papparazzi and put in "Us" or the Enquirer or any other similar rag.

 

 

Tiger Beat is "reporting" news. Yahoo is trying to get you to buy one of their services.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It always gets dicey when you use images. Having Brady on their advertising is hardly endorsement by him unless he alone is standing there pointing at a PC screen with Yahoo on it. If they have him in the normal action of a football game with other players showing as well, cannot see how that is a problem as it should have been covered with the millions that Yahoo gives to the NFLPA. But if it is him alone, then he probably has a case.

 

 

this is the image he's suing over

 

edit: notice LT, LJ, moss, shockey, and smith aren't suing. but then again, they're not

Edited by Azazello1313
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo is using Brady's image to sell their game. It is not in any way like a newspaper reporting on a team. If a company were to use an image of Brady in an advertisement within a newspaper they could be subject to the same action. Different laws apply.

 

the 'injury' here is similar to a trademark injury. A company that holds a trademark must actively defend that trademark from piracy in order to maintain it. If another entity uses the trademark consistantly and it can be shown that the holder has knowledge and does not defend the possesion, they can lose the trademark because they have represented by their actions that it is not really their trademark.

 

Brady and other public figures get paid to endorse products. If they allow companies to use their image to sell a product without compensation, then why should other companies pay the athlete for endorsement?

 

 

for the sake of argument, if sports illustrated puts a big game-action photo of brady on its cover, and then reprints a photo of the cover to use in advertising, how is that not also using brady's image? i understand that using it on the cover itself is ok, but what happens when the cover itself is then used for ads? i would think that people would understand that brady himself isn't endorsing the magazine, just as yahoo's using a generic photo of brady during a game wouldn't make people think he's endorsing its service. it's not the same as audi taking a photo of brady driving around in one of its cars and then using it in an ad. (i'm no lawyer here, just trying to make an argument for the other side.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I understand the defense of trademark requirement.

 

Okay, so explain to me how it is not like the "Tiger Beat" scenario I presented, or any other picture taken by papparazzi and put in "Us" or the Enquirer or any other similar rag.

 

 

 

You are confusing the reporting of news with advertising. 'News outlets' get all sorts of special expemtions under the law. This is one of them.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

for the sake of argument, if sports illustrated puts a big game-action photo of brady on its cover, and then reprints a photo of the cover to use in advertising, how is that not also using brady's image? i understand that using it on the cover itself is ok, but what happens when the cover itself is then used for ads? i would think that people would understand that brady himself isn't endorsing the magazine, just as yahoo's using a generic photo of brady during a game wouldn't make people think he's endorsing its service. it's not the same as audi taking a photo of brady driving around in one of its cars and then using it in an ad. (i'm no lawyer here, just trying to make an argument for the other side.)

 

 

 

AFAIK, Sports Illustrated would have to get permission to use the image in advertising. Do you have some information where they used his image in advertising and did not get permission or compensate him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You are confusing the reporting of news with advertising. 'News outlets' get all sorts of special expemtions under the law. This is one of them.

 

 

But the only reason why some of the rags have value - the Enquirer, for instance - is that they contain photos of public figures in public situations (predominantly unflattering). Yahoo has its own inherent value regardless of whether they use a photo of Brady or not, and agian, they are not implying in any overt way that I can see that Brady is endorsing their product, and I don't see where a photo of Brady enhances the value of their product in any tangible way.

 

I understand the trademark law, but I also know that there is a different standard for public figures when someone uses their photos or quotes their words.

 

I'd like to re-emphasize that I am not a lawyer & am trying to understand the situation, Brady's grounds for his suit, and the likelihood of his suit succeeding.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

AFAIK, Sports Illustrated would have to get permission to use the image in advertising. Do you have some information where they used his image in advertising and did not get permission or compensate him?

 

 

i don't. i just know that when i worked for a newspaper (on the editorial side), we had a weekly entertainment section, and i know we had bus ads and billboards that used the section's covers in the ads. i have no knowledge of how that part of the operation worked, but if there was a cover photo of, say, bono on stage during a concert, the paper would have to get bono's permission to run a depiction of that cover in an ad? (this was years ago, so i don't actually remember which covers were in the ads.)

Link to comment
Share on other sites

another stupid lawsuit, gee they have his picture, so what. Just another example, of how the rich and spoiled sports personalities have huge egos and unbelievable greed. Besides he gave me 0 tds last week

 

This has nothing to do with rich and spoiled. You have exactly the same rights. If you are identifiable in the picture or drawing, then someone cannot use your image or likeness without your permission to market a product or service because that implies endosement on your part. Whether or not you get paid to give your permission is an entirely different discussion.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

This has nothing to do with rich and spoiled. You have exactly the same rights. If you are identifiable in the picture or drawing, then someone cannot use your image or likeness without your permission to market a product or service because that implies endosement on your part. Whether or not you get paid to give your permission is an entirely different discussion.

 

 

well yahoo fantasy football paid millions of dollars to the NFLPA for the right to use the players' names and likenesses. the players, through the players association negotiated and agreed to that deal, and the players all receive the proceeds. this isn't a simple question of yahoo taking a picture of some celebrity and using it in advertising without their consent. the question really is whether yahoo's license with the NFLPA covers something like the ad in question. i'm sure yahoo's lawyers felt pretty strongly that it IS covered by the agreement or they never would have allowed the ad to go forward in the first place.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Yahoo is using Brady's image to sell their game. It is not in any way like a newspaper reporting on a team. If a company were to use an image of Brady in an advertisement within a newspaper they could be subject to the same action. Different laws apply.

 

the 'injury' here is similar to a trademark injury. A company that holds a trademark must actively defend that trademark from piracy in order to maintain it. If another entity uses the trademark consistantly and it can be shown that the holder has knowledge and does not defend the possesion, they can lose the trademark because they have represented by their actions that it is not really their trademark.

 

Brady and other public figures get paid to endorse products. If they allow companies to use their image to sell a product without compensation, then why should other companies pay the athlete for endorsement?

:D Exactly.

 

Tiger Beat is "reporting" news. Yahoo is trying to get you to buy one of their services.

Yep.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information