MB3's Dad's T-shirts

[moonpie23]

this is kind of interesting. Seems like those T-shirts we saw at the game were from MB#'s dad, but since then, others are making, and selling the image on other stuff... (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/duke-now/article195480224.html)

man, i hate thieves...

[Pghdukie]

A parent making money off their son ? Does LaVar Ball come to mind ? More importantly, is this an NCAA violation ? Interesting to say the least

[moonpie23]

A parent making money off their son ? Does LaVar Ball come to mind ? More importantly, is this an NCAA violation ? Interesting to say the least

if i read that correctly, the dad GAVE the t-shirts away.....someone ELSE is making all the swag stuff with Marvin's photo on march...

[TJ99]

if i read that correctly, the dad GAVE the t-shirts away...someone ELSE is making all the swag stuff with Marvin's photo on march...

You are correct. Duke BBall instagram posted some students wearing them, in the comments several people were asking how to get them and one of the students replied that Marvin's Dad gave them to the students. The Bagley family is not selling these shirts.

[trinity92]

Nice to see in the Observer article that Jay Bilas, attorney extraordinaire, doesn’t know his copyright from his trademark and publicity rights.

[PackMan97]

Only in the insanity that is the NCAA would they punish kids who don't take the "appropriate" steps when they find someone other than the NCAA making money off their likeness. Since the NCAA owns the rights to these kids, you would think the job of sending a cease and desist letter would fall to the NCAA...but nope. If the kid, their family or their school don't send the letter than the kid could become inelligible.

/sigh

[niveklaen]

Only in the insanity that is the NCAA would they punish kids who don't take the "appropriate" steps when they find someone other than the NCAA making money off their likeness. Since the NCAA owns the rights to these kids, you would think the job of sending a cease and desist letter would fall to the NCAA...but nope. If the kid, their family or their school don't send the letter than the kid could become inelligible.

/sigh

You can probably thank Obannon for that. IIRC his lawsuit resulted in the court ruling that the NCAA does not own the likeness of its players and hence has no authority to issue cease and desist letters themselves.

[uh_no]

Nice to see in the Observer article that Jay Bilas, attorney extraordinaire, doesn’t know his copyright from his trademark and publicity rights.

While it's possible he could have been using "copyright law" to refer to IP in general, I'm no longer shocked that jay bilas says stupid things. If you tried to call him out on it, not only would he deride you, but he'd try to claim the law was wrong and he was right. and then say "I speak the truth. If you don't like it you can get your own show" (actual Bilas quote)

[sagegrouse]

You can probably thank Obannon for that. IIRC his lawsuit resulted in the court ruling that the NCAA does not own the likeness of its players and hence has no authority to issue cease and desist letters themselves.

Yes, and it is also Jay Bilas who instigated NCAA changes, by searching "Johnny Manziel jersey" and ending up on the NCAA web site, where it was offered for sale. Immediately afterwards, the NCAA stopped the sales of players' paraphernalia.

[moonpie23]

if i was his dad, i wouldn't wait for the NCAA or anyone else to handle this. I'd have my attorneys giving that merch company a proctology exam with a chainsaw,,,,,

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I know this board likes to hate on Bilas, but it seems to me that he is squarely in the right the side of Bagley here. I assume we are not linking to this article out of some sort of protest?

Everything about that article makes sense to me. Bagley (and family) can't make money off his image/likeness/uniform while he is an amateur. You can disagree with this rule, but it doesn't seem that the Bagleys are - they are just being very careful, and wisely so. Duke and the NCAA CAN make money off his likeness. This has been well established, O'bannon or not. If Duke sells a #3 jersey, that's making money off Grayson Allen. Uninvolved third parties also cannot make money off of player likenesses. This isn't just limited to the NCAA. Does anyone else remember the black market "Bart Jordan" tee shirts of the 90s? Are we just hating on Bilas out of habit?

8009

[Bluedog]

I know this board likes to hate on Bilas, but it seems to me that he is squarely in the right the side of Bagley here. I assume we are not linking to this article out of some sort of protest?

Everything about that article makes sense to me. Bagley (and family) can't make money off his image/likeness/uniform while he is an amateur. You can disagree with this rule, but it doesn't seem that the Bagleys are - they are just being very careful, and wisely so. Duke and the NCAA CAN make money off his likeness. This has been well established, O'bannon or not. If Duke sells a #3 jersey, that's making money off Grayson Allen. Uninvolved third parties also cannot make money off of player likenesses. This isn't just limited to the NCAA. Does anyone else remember the black market "Bart Jordan" tee shirts of the 90s? Are we just hating on Bilas out of habit?

8009

Schools are allowed to sell jerseys with numbers on them, but not player's names. Thus, they can argue it's not the player's likeness. Of course, we all know Grayson wears #3, but the jerseys for sale are forbidden from using his name. NCAA and member institutions cannot sell merchandise with player names or pictures on them. EA Sports can no longer create college sports video games with individuals looking like actual players -- and they don't make any college games anymore at all as a result of that. But, yes, I agree with you that there is potentially a gray area of merchandise that suggests a connecction to an indvividual without being explicit. Basically, there are some loopholes. But, by and large, I would flatly state the Duke, the NCAA, and third parties are forbidden from making money of the players' likeness by the letter of the law.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Schools are allowed to sell jerseys with numbers on them, but not player's names. Thus, they can argue it's not the player's likeness. Of course, we all know Grayson wears #3, but the jerseys for sale are forbidden from using his name. NCAA and member institutions cannot sell merchandise with player names or pictures on them. EA Sports can no longer create college sports video games with individuals looking like actual players -- and they don't make any college games anymore at all as a result of that. But, yes, I agree with you that there is potentially a gray area of merchandise that suggests a connecction to an indvividual without being explicit. Basically, there are some loopholes. But, by and large, I would flatly state the Duke, the NCAA, and third parties are forbidden from making money of the players' likeness by the letter of the law.

Well, toe-MAY-toe, toe-MAH-toe, we are basically saying the same thing. I still don't understand what offense Bilas has committed here by being firmly on the side of our player and against the idea of a third party making counterfeit t-shirts with Bagley's picture on it. Bilas isn't perfect in any way, but when he backs up players' rights, I'm with him. Especially when it's our player, and when it seems our player and his family are making every effort to be very careful.

[JasonEvans]

So, I’ve got a question.

Let’s say someone sold Bagley T-shirts and then after the season ended and Marvin had turned pro they agreed to pay Bagley’s dad a fee for future sales as well as a retroactive fee for sales in the past. Would that make Marvin ineligible retroactively?

I know Bagley’s dad could not enter into a contract prior to Marvin leaving school, but if he entered into one after turning pro...

Another option to get money for the family would be for the Bagley family to allow the company to continue to sell T-shirts and then sue them for royalties after the season is done.

Jason “Just trying to think of creative ways to get around silly NCAA rules” Evans

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

So, I’ve got a question.

Let’s say someone sold Bagley T-shirts and then after the season ended and Marvin had turned pro they agreed to pay Bagley’s dad a fee for future sales as well as a retroactive fee for sales in the past. Would that make Marvin ineligible retroactively?

I know Bagley’s dad could not enter into a contract prior to Marvin leaving school, but if he entered into one after turning pro...

Another option to get money for the family would be for the Bagley family to allow the company to continue to sell T-shirts and then sue them for royalties after the season is done.

Jason “Just trying to think of creative ways to get around silly NCAA rules” Evans

Yeah, I don't quite see why this is a story at all I guess. No one seems to be arguing that Bagley's family is trying to make money off the shirts. No one is arguing that the random person/s selling shirts online should be allowed to continue selling them.

The only controversy is whether the NCAA/university ought to be making money off the players' likenesses, but that's been so long established and reeks on weird hypocrisy that I feel it's well worn territory.

[El_Diablo]

I know this board likes to hate on Bilas, but it seems to me that he is squarely in the right the side of Bagley here. I assume we are not linking to this article out of some sort of protest?

The article is linked in the first post.

I thought people were mainly just making fun of his apparent confusion about basic IP principles (conflating publicity rights and copyright) in light of the pompous nature in which he treats people who disagree with him.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

The article is linked in the first post.

I thought people were mainly just making fun of his apparent confusion about basic IP principles (conflating publicity rights and copyright) in light of the pompous nature in which he treats people who disagree with him.

Ah so. I didn't realize that was the same article I was reading on a different website under the Knight-Ridder umbrella. Nevermind.

[uh_no]

I thought people were mainly just making fun of his apparent confusion about basic IP principles (conflating publicity rights and copyright) in light of the pompous nature in which he treats people who disagree with him.

That's exactly it. I may generally agree with his opinion in this case, but calling out a lawyer who is factually incorrect on a basic legal matter is fair game.

[Doria]

That's exactly it. I may generally agree with his opinion in this case, but calling out a lawyer who is factually incorrect on a basic legal matter is fair game.

And you don’t have to be an attorney to know basic information like this. All you need to do is work in one of a multitude of professions that deal with IP. I get that he was likely talking generally, in response to a question. But he does tend to present his opinion as fact so, yeah, fair game. (For the record, I actually don’t usually mind Bilas, in his media persona.)

Anyway, though, it’s sad that people have taken a father’s loving support of his son and exploited it. But it isn’t at all surprising.

[trinity92]

The article is linked in the first post.

I thought people were mainly just making fun of his apparent confusion about basic IP principles (conflating publicity rights and copyright) in light of the pompous nature in which he treats people who disagree with him.

Bingo, and ditto for uh-no, Doria and anyone else with the good sense to agree with me ;)

[Pghdukie]

I cite the "Catholics vs Convicts" t-shirts. ND made the sellers give all the money earned to the University. Yes there were copyright infringements, but didn't ND keep the profits ?

[UrinalCake]

The fact that the NCAA expects the player and their family to be the ones to shut down the improper sales made by somebody else has got to be the biggest example of hypocrisy yet as shown by the NCAA. Let's see, basically they're saying to their athletes:

1. We will make billions of dollars off of you.
2. You are not allowed to make a dime off of your own likeness.
3. If somebody else tries to make a dime off of your likeness, it is your responsibility to stop them, otherwise we will punish you.

In what universe does that make any sense? The NCAA expects universities to self-report their own violations, otherwise they won't investigate. They expect schools to do their own private investigations (as in Penn State) and then they ignore them anyways if they feel like it (as in the Wainstein Report). And now they expect the players themselves to police the free market for any improper commerce. So, exactly what purpose does the NCAA itself serve?

[uh_no]

The fact that the NCAA expects the player and their family to be the ones to shut down the improper sales made by somebody else has got to be the biggest example of hypocrisy yet as shown by the NCAA.

as someone pointed out upthread, this is a direct consequence of the o'bannan ruling.