So all of a sudden you know more than a lawyer? Your mother must be proud.

There are lawyers on both sides, and they disagree about the law. That's why they will argue about it in court. So no reason to be nasty to plantman.

So all of a sudden you know more than a lawyer? Your mother must be proud.

 

There are several members on BGP that know more than some lawyers...........however being that I work in merchandising contracts on a regular basis, I do know how the fine print works yes.

So all of a sudden you know more than a lawyer? Your mother must be proud.

 

And to answer the second half of your statement, every time I see my mother she just sighs and says, "Where did I go wrong!" :lol2:

NCAA Spokeman "Unfortunately we don't make up the rules, we just enforce them, oh wait....."

There are lawyers on both sides, and they disagree about the law. That's why they will argue about it in court. So no reason to be nasty to plantman.

 

 

You don't need a reason to be nasty to plantman. :sssh::lol2::lol2::lol2:

There are several members on BGP that know more than some lawyers...........however being that I work in merchandising contracts on a regular basis, I do know how the fine print works yes.

 

 

What? You mean you aren't a full time gardener?

What? You mean you aren't a full time gardener?

 

Nope, after an incident in a bonsai garden I started typing in japanese and it just got to be to much, lol.

The biggest difference is that UK didn't create or distribute those shirts.

 

Correct. It was essentially equivalent to a guy selling them out of his van.

 

I've seen hundreds of those shirts, which means there are thousands across the state. And UK and the NCAA just said, "Oh, that's OK. We don't want a taste" in this case? Seems to fly in the face of the greed we know infests college athletics.

There are lawyers on both sides, and they disagree about the law. That's why they will argue about it in court. So no reason to be nasty to plantman.

 

 

You must be awfully sensitive if you think that is nasty.

So all of a sudden you know more than a lawyer? Your mother must be proud.

 

I can vouch for knowledge and practical knowledge of plantmanky on this matter.

 

His knowledge comes from dealing with this matter first hand involving hundreds of kids.

 

And he is correct.

I can vouch for knowledge and practical knowledge of plantmanky on this matter.

 

His knowledge comes from dealing with this matter first hand involving hundreds of kids.

 

And he is correct.

 

 

So when the lawyer says that if the university asked Kevin Ware for permission to use his number and his likeness when selling the shirts and if he said yes then his eligibility comes into question is wrong and the plantman is right? How come the schools don't put name and number on the back of the jerseys they sell then? How come it's just a number? If they have complete and total control of all likeness and can use it however they want then why is that?

This could splinter this thread into a new direction... but Ware isn't paid.

 

He is. We all know the arguments of is a scholarship enough. Granted. But he does receive material benefit and it is a form of being paid.

 

However, even if he is NOT paid at all - he signed a contract that signed over the rights to his image, likeness, picture, etc to the NCAA or its member institution. Can he take those licensed images owned by the NCAA and start signing them in autograph sessions after he leaves the realm of the NCAA and its member institution? No, the NCAA and institution owns the rights to those images.

 

After he leaves can he take a new picture of himself and go on a for profit autograph session with that image that is not owned by the NCAA? I believe so.

So when the lawyer says that if the university asked Kevin Ware for permission to use his number and his likeness when selling the shirts and if he said yes then his eligibility comes into question is wrong and the plantman is right? How come the schools don't put name and number on the back of the jerseys they sell then? How come it's just a number? If they have complete and total control of all likeness and can use it however they want then why is that?

 

Not sure what lawyer - O'Bannon's? How would he know what conversation is.

 

Even if an action can legally be done without explicit permission it may have been a courtesy to obtain personal 'go-ahead' from the family given the sensitivity of the situation.

 

This probably could have been done without specific permission from Ware or the Ware family.

The biggest difference is that UK didn't create or distribute those shirts.

 

Interesting....

 

So who granted the permission to use the likeness?

 

I am not sure if 'The Brow' could be copyrighted or licensed but who it is referencing is certainly obvious. Just as the #5 is clearly Ware.

 

I do not want to create another contriversy in this thread. But this licensing, copyright and royalties may have some interesting loop holes if that product was not at all licensed in any manner.

Interesting....

 

So who granted the permission to use the likeness?

 

I am not sure if 'The Brow' could be copyrighted or licensed but who it is referencing is certainly obvious. Just as the #5 is clearly Ware.

 

I do not want to create another contriversy in this thread. But this licensing, copyright and royalties may have some interesting loop holes if that product was not at all licensed in any manner.

 

I had to find the status of this.

 

Fear the Brow | Astronomy and Law

 

This looks like it was done after Davis was done with his NCAA participation. So the NCAA and UK had no issue. But AD did and appears still does.

 

From link above...

"However, like Jeremy Lin and other sports stars who were not the first to file, Anthony should still be able to challenge the trademark, arguing that it undeniably refers to him.

 

To date the Trademark office has issued an office action to Mr. Coffman noting the relationship between Davis and his particular facial feature. Mr. Coffman has not yet responded."