Forum

Chris Spielman files class action against OSU  

  RSS

John Porentas
Eminent Member Admin
Joined:7 months  ago
Posts: 26
July 14, 2017 1:17 pm  

Chris Spielman has filed suit vs. Ohio State and IMG over the use of the images of student-athletes for commercial purposes.  http://bit.ly/2tRCxY9


ReplyQuote
BuckeyeDale
Eminent Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 46
July 14, 2017 2:51 pm  

Sooner or later, Institutions of Higher Learning are going to decide the money isn't worth the hassle.  Is the NFL willing to pony up the cash for a minor league like MLB?  Add all this to the growing "Mom's concerns" with concussions, and football is going to go down the tubes right behind boxing.  

We're all Buckeyes here. With that in mind, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
Active here since early '97, closing in on 6,000 posts, according to that counter.


ReplyQuote
Hetuck - VA
Active Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 7
July 14, 2017 3:19 pm  

Just read the article, and while I don't disagree with the merits of what they are doing, it's comes off as a bunch of rich people wanting money from other rich people.  These squabbles never have good optics and will end up reflecting poorly on the school and the former athletes.  

Are they really upset about a giant picture of themselves being hung in the concourse at Ohio Stadium?  I would give my right arm to be so honored.  

So then is it about bobbleheads and throwback jerseys?  That's a tiny fraction of the overall merchandising - so I'm guessing Ohio State will just stop making or licensing stuff with ex-player images.

Should Ohio State remove Griffin's name from the honorees ringing the stadium since it's without his permission?  That would be ridiculous.

Suits like this are just ridiculous.  I'm guessing Chris and Archie and whoever else is joining in on this action are soon to become persona non grata at OSU events going forward.

Helluva shame.

PS - Is Chris just trying to show his altruism by donating any money he gets back to the university athletic department?  How moronic - sue the university and then give back the money if you win.  It's apparently a lawyer income support program I hadn't heard about.

 

Edited: 2 months  ago

ReplyQuote
Hetuck - VA
Active Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 7
July 14, 2017 3:28 pm  

Here's another article link - the one John had up above didn't work for me.

AP Article


ReplyQuote
Crabapple Buck
Eminent Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 28
July 14, 2017 4:35 pm  

My first thought regarding the Chris Spielman law suit - If the roles were reversed, tOSU would be in court so fast your head would spin. So anyone blaming/faulting/critisizing Chris needs to get a grip. tOSU is all about tOSU. They protect their brand to the point of making sure that no image, phrase, logo, likeness, etc is used or they will claim copyright infringement.

So what is good for the goose, is good for the gander. It is a two way street.

 


HilliardJoe liked
ReplyQuote




HilliardJoe
Active Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 13
July 14, 2017 8:05 pm  

Yep, Chris is doing this because he has the clout to do it.  His donating any money he receives back to the AD shows this.  This is for all the other players that can't afford to be the front man for this.

The school makes so much money off these athletes they can afford to pay them for using their likenessess.

There are 10 types of people in the world. Those that understand binary and those that don't.


ReplyQuote
NorthBerg
Active Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 18
July 15, 2017 6:23 am  

Anybody get the feeling that the Ohio State athletic department is suing itself hoping to force a change in NCAA policy on player benefits? The tone of the litigation does not really seem adversarial.


ReplyQuote
WolfsBane
Trusted Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 70
July 15, 2017 10:31 am  

I'd wager that this doesn't come without prior knowledge to Gene Smith and other members of the university, in spite of the statements they have to put out. Yes, Gene Smith represents the university, but he also must create and cultivate relationships with present and former players. 

This is gaining traction. It has been held acceptable that a university has the right and privilege to benefit from student athletes performance for administrative and promotional purposes. But the notion that the institution should continue benefiting long after the student athlete is gone is highly questionable.  The other argument is that the institution offers only the opportunity for the athletes to compete, and is not necessarily responsible for the athletes success or future earning potential, and the institution should not be able to capitalize on the work and earnings that the athlete alone is responsible for generating. 

Those seem to be the main arguments. 

The Ozone Original Site Plank Owner
Welcome to the house of rock!
Go Bucks!


ReplyQuote
wigmon
New Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 2
July 15, 2017 10:58 am  

Im sure there are plenty of ex buckeyes that would love to have their images used in support of the university.  This is about a money grab, not about ex players not wanting their image used.


ReplyQuote
WolfsBane
Trusted Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 70
July 15, 2017 12:41 pm  
Posted by: wigmon

Im sure there are plenty of ex buckeyes that would love to have their images used in support of the university.  This is about a money grab, not about ex players not wanting their image used.

Agree

The Ozone Original Site Plank Owner
Welcome to the house of rock!
Go Bucks!


ReplyQuote




MrBuckeye
Eminent Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 20
July 17, 2017 9:56 am  

I think I'm missing something on this.  In the article they keep interchanging "player" with "former player".  Which is it?

If it's a former player, then I'm curious where/how this is occurring.  Are we just taking about the images of players in the concourse of the stadium?  Is this about bobble-heads?  These images in the concourse are meant as monuments to the accomplishments of these players.  These displays are paid for through advertisements.   I don't see an issue.  If the school receives a net gain from it, well. . .is that so bad? 

Here's what's going to happen:  Nice historic tributes will go away.  So not only will former players not see any money from this, but they're accomplishments won't be honored either.   Who wins?  Nobody.  So what's the point? 

Still. . .players are treated like royalty while they're at Ohio State.  Plus they get a free education(with tutors), room and training table.   They aren't getting nothing.  They aren't being exploited. 

Which poor former players are the victims here?  Spielman?  Griffin?  Are there others?  Because yeah. . .this just sounds like rich people complaining about pennies. 


ReplyQuote
WolfsBane
Trusted Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 70
July 17, 2017 11:00 am  

My understanding is that the issue stems from the university using former player's image attached to other corporate logos, marketing, and advertisements.  I don't think paying for tributes for players is the issue. 

The notion that student athletes get a 'free' education, board, and food is frankly, misguided.  These athletes work hard for what they get, and those that work the hardest to the point where they are successful at their craft generate a HUGE income source for the university.  Often, disproportionately above what they receive in return in terms of tuition, room, and board.  You have to remember that the NCAA prohibits the student from receiving income generated by the NCAA and the university from selling their image and clothing with their name on it while they are in the student athlete status.  And we are talking in some cases, millions of dollars of generated revenue.  So the notion that they are getting free anything, is anything but... even for those that play limited roles.  Their job is to be football players, and they do that.  That is the agreement for them to pay their way through school.

But again, in this case, this is not the main issue.  These present and former student athletes do no object for the university to use their image to promote the university.  In fact, the far majority are proud of that legacy and give their blessings.  What they apparently object to is for the university to sell their image and name in marketing ventures with other corporate entities, and apparently at a point in time when the individual may no longer an active student athlete of the university.  Specially if this is being done without their express consent, and with the university being the sole beneficiary. 

Edited: 2 months  ago

The Ozone Original Site Plank Owner
Welcome to the house of rock!
Go Bucks!


ReplyQuote
BuckeyeDale
Eminent Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 46
July 17, 2017 1:41 pm  

" What they apparently object to is for the university to sell their image and name in marketing ventures with other corporate entities, ..."

Apparently?  And what are these marketing ventures you spoke of?  For us common folk who only get as close to Saturdays' TV lineups to these people?

We're all Buckeyes here. With that in mind, we should be able to disagree without being disagreeable.
Active here since early '97, closing in on 6,000 posts, according to that counter.


ReplyQuote
WolfsBane
Trusted Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 70
July 17, 2017 1:54 pm  

"Apparently?  And what are these marketing ventures you spoke of?  For us common folk who only get as close to Saturdays' TV lineups to these people?"

Wrong person to ask.  If want that level of inside knowledge, you are going to have to ask the two parties involved who are the only ones with intimate knowledge of the proceedings, (the suing party and the defendants).

Edited: 2 months  ago

The Ozone Original Site Plank Owner
Welcome to the house of rock!
Go Bucks!


ReplyQuote
MrBuckeye
Eminent Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 20
July 18, 2017 7:44 am  

WolfsBane,

I'm not buying it.  This "class" for the class action suit seems really small. . .like maybe 3 or 4 people.   It almost feels like the ego and greed of those three or four people is being concealed behind the "principle" and pity for the "class".  When really, there is no class and the principle isn't worth any money.   


ReplyQuote




WolfsBane
Trusted Member
Joined:3 months  ago
Posts: 70
July 18, 2017 11:59 am  
Posted by: MrBuckeye

WolfsBane,

I'm not buying it.  This "class" for the class action suit seems really small. . .like maybe 3 or 4 people.   It almost feels like the ego and greed of those three or four people is being concealed behind the "principle" and pity for the "class".  When really, there is no class and the principle isn't worth any money.   

I agree that this may be a possibility in any of these proceedings.  The other possibility as previously mentioned may be a 'money grab'.  The thing that gives me pause here is that one of the entities, (Speilman himself), has already gone  public stating that he does not intend to keep any of the money that may be awarded if the lawsuit is successful.  He has already stated that he intends to donate any proceedings he personally may get, back to the university.  If this is the case, then this doesn't necessarily seem to be about greed, at least in Spielman's case.  He and other former players are usually very active donating to the university and are involved with activities raising funds for programs outside of the football field or the football program in partnership with the university.  It is because of this past history that this is a bit perplexing.  Both entities have worked in partnership many times before.  So having one of the parties feel that they have to make a decision to bring a lawsuit is a little out of character IMO based on that past relationship between the two parties.

Edited: 2 months  ago

The Ozone Original Site Plank Owner
Welcome to the house of rock!
Go Bucks!


ReplyQuote
  
Working

Please Login or Register