Jump to content

Recommended Posts

Posted
1 minute ago, Captain Hindsight said:

Sounds like he may be getting some bad advice. I would think at the least, it s better to have a lawyer call the Bills instead of using twitter...

Absolutely. He is getting bashed on Twitter 

Posted

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

  • Like (+1) 4
  • Thank you (+1) 3
Posted

yea who owns the video at this point?  the tv station 25 years later? the bills might have bought it.  guy is trying to sell shirts and stuff but might have overthought his actual demand. 

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted
1 minute ago, Motorin' said:

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

 

If he created the video, you might be right. However, that is not the case here. I am fairly certain the Bills are free to use reproductions of that video. 

  • Like (+1) 5
Posted
2 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

No, he's not.

 

News footage is public domain, not private property. 

  • Like (+1) 16
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted (edited)

Poor move. He should be using this 15 minutes to help elevate himself. The fact that the Bills themselves are using his video is free publicity. 

 

All he going to do is ruin his ties with the Bills and in turn ruin the relationship with the fans. 

 

No one, player, fan, etc... is bigger than the emblem on the side of the helmet. 

 

Fatal error. 

Edited by Bobby Hooks
  • Like (+1) 7
Posted
3 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

 

The video belongs to the news station that broadcasted it

  • Like (+1) 1
Posted

Thought the video was trash back in the day, have not changed my mind.

 

If he owns the rights, he should get paid.  Just like the Bills would expect to get paid for their logo on a bag of chips.

  • Like (+1) 2
Posted (edited)
7 minutes ago, aristocrat said:

yea who owns the video at this point?  the tv station 25 years later? the bills might have bought it.  guy is trying to sell shirts and stuff but might have overthought his actual demand. 

It depends, if he signed a release at the time of filming, that release likely granted the company rights to his image and voice in perpetuity. They would also likely have the right to license it.

 

But a lot of news channels don't use releases for "news" bc their footage is covered under the first amendment ... 

 

If the company that originally filmed didn't use a release that granted them the rights to the footage and the rights to assign it, Mark has a case. 

5 minutes ago, Clemfield2622 said:

No, he's not.

 

News footage is public domain, not private property. 

No it's not. You can't use news footage without paying the company that filmed it. And it costs a pretty penny. 

 

But there's a difference between news footage and using a person's likeness and personality to sell in advertising.

 

 

 

Edited by Motorin'
  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Posted
4 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

 

Can you say Turd ? The guy hasn't been thought of in over 20 yrs & they bring that video back & the first thing in todays modern way of thinking is 

 

SUE, I'm going to SUE you  what a ? !

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Awesome! (+1) 1
×
×
  • Create New...