Law.com Subscribers SAVE 30%
Call 855-808-4530 or email [email protected] to receive your discount on a new subscription.
Developments In Student Athletes' Publicity Rights
The rights of college student-athletes to receive compensation for the use of their "name, image and likeness" (NIL) are finally being addressed. As with most employment-related laws, the legal authority for protecting a college athlete's NIL rights can be traced to California. In 2014, former UCLA Basketball star Ed O'Bannon filed a class action in the U.S. District Court for the Northern District of California on behalf of college athletes alleging the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA) and its colleges were violating antitrust laws by profiting off the NIL of college athletes without compensating the student-athletes for the unauthorized use.
Fast forward seven years and the issue is the subject of additional lawsuits, proposed federal legislation and the adoption by six states of NIL laws. In addition, the NCAA has expressed a willingness to evaluate the issue and consider changing its bylaws to authorize student-athletes' rights to pursue NIL endorsement opportunities. In 2021, guidance is expected from the U.S. Supreme Court, the federal government, various state governments, and the NCAA. A watershed moment in college sports is expected to result in decisions and actions by multiple forums that will drastically change the rights of student-athletes and a whole new world for college athletics.
The case before the Supreme Court, National Collegiate Athletic Association v. Alston, 20-512, is an appeal from Alston v. NCAA (In re NCAA Athletic Grant-In-Aid Cap Antitrust Litig, 958 F.3d 1239 (9th Cir. 2020). The Ninth Circuit affirmed a district court order enjoining the NCAA from enforcing rules that restrict the education-related benefits its member institutions may offer to Division I football and basketball student-athletes. The appeals court affirmed that the limits to above-cost of attendance compensation for student-athletes the NCAA presently imposes on member institutions is an unlawful restraint of trade under the Sherman Act.
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
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.
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.
'Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P.': A Tutorial On Contract Liability for Real Estate Purchasers
In June 2024, the First Department decided Huguenot LLC v. Megalith Capital Group Fund I, L.P., which resolved a question of liability for a group of condominium apartment buyers and in so doing, touched on a wide range of issues about how contracts can obligate purchasers of real property.
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.