Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Fantasy Baseball First Amendment Rights
Certain state laws have created an intellectual property right known as the 'right of publicity,' protecting the rights of individuals to control the commercial use of their identities. The right of publicity differs from the 'right of privacy,' which is more generally understood to be a right of individuals to protect against the dissemination of private facts about themselves that can cause injury to personal feelings, such as embarrassment, indignity, and mental trauma. Although the right of publicity bears some relationship to trademark, copyright, misappropriation, defamation, and false advertising law, it is a distinct intellectual property right. McCarthy on The Rights of Publicity and Privacy ”1:1-1:8 (2007).
The first case to apply the right of publicity involved chewing gum trading cards featuring the images of professional baseball players. Haelan Laboratories, Inc. v. Topps Chewing Gum, Inc., 202 F.2d 866 (2d Cir. 1953). Recently, the right of publicity of baseball players again featured prominently in a federal appellate decision. C.A.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc. v. Major League Baseball Advanced Media, L.P., 505 F.3d 818 (8th Cir. 2007). The Eighth Circuit concluded that the First Amendment rights to run a fantasy baseball league by using the names, performance, and biographical data of professional baseball players superseded the players' rights of publicity.
C.B.C. Distribution and Marketing, Inc., which sells fantasy sports products, conducted a fantasy baseball league where participants formed their fantasy teams by 'drafting' players from major league baseball teams. The success of each participant's team depended on the actual performance of the professional baseball players during the course of the major league season. The participants paid fees to CBC to play and to trade players during the season.
This premium content is locked for Entertainment Law & Finance subscribers only
ENJOY UNLIMITED ACCESS TO THE SINGLE SOURCE OF OBJECTIVE LEGAL ANALYSIS, PRACTICAL INSIGHTS, AND NEWS IN ENTERTAINMENT LAW.
- Stay current on the latest information, rulings, regulations, and trends
- Includes practical, must-have information on copyrights, royalties, AI, and more
- Tap into expert guidance from top entertainment lawyers and experts
Already a have an account? Sign In Now Log In Now
For enterprise-wide or corporate acess, please contact Customer Service at [email protected] or 877-256-2473
Major Differences In UK, U.S. Copyright Laws
This article highlights how copyright law in the United Kingdom differs from U.S. copyright law, and points out differences that may be crucial to entertainment and media businesses familiar with U.S law that are interested in operating in the United Kingdom or under UK law. The article also briefly addresses contrasts in UK and U.S. trademark law.
The Article 8 Opt In
The Article 8 opt-in election adds an additional layer of complexity to the already labyrinthine rules governing perfection of security interests under the UCC. A lender that is unaware of the nuances created by the opt in (may find its security interest vulnerable to being primed by another party that has taken steps to perfect in a superior manner under the circumstances.
Strategy vs. Tactics: Two Sides of a Difficult Coin
With each successive large-scale cyber attack, it is slowly becoming clear that ransomware attacks are targeting the critical infrastructure of the most powerful country on the planet. Understanding the strategy, and tactics of our opponents, as well as the strategy and the tactics we implement as a response are vital to victory.
Legal Possession: What Does It Mean?
Possession of real property is a matter of physical fact. Having the right or legal entitlement to possession is not "possession," possession is "the fact of having or holding property in one's power." That power means having physical dominion and control over the property.
The Anti-Assignment Override Provisions
UCC Sections 9406(d) and 9408(a) are one of the most powerful, yet least understood, sections of the Uniform Commercial Code. On their face, they appear to override anti-assignment provisions in agreements that would limit the grant of a security interest. But do these sections really work?