Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

To: Stone Mountain
I'm not complaining about their decision, my only point was that the NFL has no intellectual ownership over the views of Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy.
141 posted on 02/01/2007 1:59:30 PM PST by HEY4QDEMS (Sarchasm: The gulf between the author of sarcastic wit and the person who doesn't get it.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 140 | View Replies ]


To: HEY4QDEMS
I'm not complaining about their decision, my only point was that the NFL has no intellectual ownership over the views of Lovie Smith and Tony Dungy.

I totally agree with that. If the church wanted to just talk about those coaches, I don't think the NFL would be complaining.
142 posted on 02/01/2007 2:02:04 PM PST by Stone Mountain
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

To: HEY4QDEMS

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.


144 posted on 02/01/2007 2:07:36 PM PST by discostu (Feed her some hungry reggae, she'll love you twice)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 141 | View Replies ]

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article


FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson