Posted on 02/01/2007 7:38:48 AM PST by pctech
Sell? No. Record? Yes. Watch? Yes.
Well remember this is a two part thing. First off the NFL doesn't like having their stuff used to send messages, largely for backlash fear there's always somebody out there that thinks message X is stupid and any implications that the NFL supports it could cost money, this is really the part the NFL is objecting to. Then there's the image thing, who owns your face, and in that regard the NFL actually does have a certain level of ownership of Smith and Dungy, they're both members of the coaches association, thus allowing the NFL to sell their names and images (like for EA Sport's Madden series, there's a reason Belichick is always listed in Madden as "NE Coach", he's not a member of the CA and refuses to sign EA's paperwork) and apply whatever rules are in the CBA to their public appearances.
Whatever.
--The only thing I question is if the NFL would be able to restrict the screen size so long as there is no admission fee, no collection and no "donations," and no use of the term "Super Bowl." It sounds like fair use to me.--
It would never have come up on their (radar) screen if they hadn't adverised it that way. (Pun intended)!
Seriously, you are probably correct in the general but NFL lawyers might disagree.
This thread kind of took on a life of its known. Glad to see people are noticing this. Thanks everyone!
bump for later
Church 'Super Bowl' festivities may go on
wnd.com | Posted: February 2, 2007 | By Bob Unruh
Posted on 02/02/2007 8:47:12 PM EST by Perdogg
http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1778396/posts
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.