Underlying the antitrust legalese of those cases is a core presumption that there may be a future payday when student-athletes can be compensated, and those antitrust plaintiffs have looked towards the billion-dollar broadcast television market as a source for potential compensation. NCAA and other recent antitrust cases, Marshall may serve as a significant bellwether for future cases. The Sixth Circuit quipped that "ordinary consumers have more sense than the theory itself does."Īlthough Marshall has received significantly less media attention than O'Bannon v. As aptly noted by the lower court: plaintiffs "cannot have been injured by a purported conspiracy to deny them the ability to sell non-existent rights." Plaintiffs' Lanham Act claim, based on a theory that a player's images on television, when juxtaposed with general advertising, created consumer confusion as to whether that player endorsed that advertising, was deemed similarly meritless. Because plaintiffs' antitrust claim was predicated on a right of publicity, the antitrust claim failed by necessity. Plaintiffs' other claims were disposed of in similar summary fashion. The Sixth Circuit dismissed plaintiffs' theory as meritless "legal fantasy." Citing approvingly to the lower court's dismissal, the Sixth Circuit noted that the Tennessee statute on which plaintiffs relied explicitly allowed the use of players' images and likenesses during sports broadcasts and noted that no Tennessee common law authority exists for the proposition that participants in sporting events have a right of publicity. Plaintiffs claimed that both Tennessee and federal law granted them property interests in their names, images and likenesses, as they appeared on television broadcasts of games in which they participated. ![]() Though plaintiffs' complaint alleged several causes of action, including antitrust violations, Lanham Act violations, conspiracy and unjust enrichment, the lower court and Sixth Circuit focused primarily on plaintiffs' assertion that their rights of publicity had been violated. Baker Donelson's, Bill Jones and Samuel Gregory (Jackson), as well as John Hicks (Nashville), represented two of the prevailing defendants. ESPN included major broadcasters, NCAA athletic conferences and various licensing agencies the NCAA itself was not a party. ![]() We think that's something pretty awesome.In a short, sharp opinion filed August 17, 2016, a three-judge panel on the Sixth Circuit Court of Appeals affirmed dismissal of a class action lawsuit brought by ten former college athletes asserting they were entitled to compensation for use of their images and names in televised games based on their "right of publicity." The defendants in Marshall v. Now players will have the opportunity to play and do good at the same time. For climate change we selected the Clean Air Task Force, for hunger The Hunger Project and for health Doctors without Borders. After substantial research we settled on three charities for players to donate to, where not only we believe every dollar donated will be the most impactful, but also where players can learn the most about each cause. ![]() We decided on a list of causes that we believe every human in the world will be passionate about: Climate Change, Hunger and Health. Let’s allow players to donate their earnings to a charity of their choice and we will - naturally - match every dollar they give. More importantly we also believe that every human wants to help make the world a better place. We consider this a new paradigm in digital entertainment and our part in trying to build a more fair world. JustPlay enables players around the world to be rewarded daily for the time they invest in playing games they love.
0 Comments
Leave a Reply. |