The NCAA, Amateurism, and Name, Image and Likeness:  It’s Complicated

{return to seminar materials website}

• Professor Barbara Osborne, Exercise and Sport Science and School of Law, University of North Carolina at Chapel Hill, North Carolina

Name, image and likeness rights and appropriate compensation for student-athletes has been a major issue for the NCAA for the past decade.  Pressure for the NCAA to change their rules has mounted in the courts and through state and federal legislation.  This presentation will provide a brief history of the legal foundations of amateurism and name, image and likeness rights, and past NCAA-related cases.  Next, an overview of the relevant NCAA amateurism rules is provided.  The California Fair Pay for Play Act is introduced as the catalyst for the current recommendations for changes coming from the NCAA Federal and State Legislation Working Group as well as the avalanche of proposed legislation at the state and federal level.  In conclusion, potential solutions relative to trademark, group licensing, and federal legislation are provided.

Cases:

• Davis v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 775 F.3d 172 (2015).
• Dawson v. National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n, 932 F.3d 905 (9^th Cir. 2019).
• Dryer v. NFL, 689 F.Supp. 2d 1113 (D. Minn., 2010). 
• Dryer v. NFL, 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 39993 (2013). 
• Dryer v. NFL, 55 F.Supp. 3d 1181 (D. Minn. 2014).
• Hart v. Electronic Arts, Inc., 717 F.3d 141 (2013).
• In re National Collegiate Athletic Ass’n Athletic Grant-in-Aid Cap Antitrust Litigation (consolidated Alston & Jenkins), No. 19-15566 (9^th Cir. May 18, 2020).
• In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268 (9^th Cir. 2013).
• Keller v. Elec. Arts, Inc., 2010 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 10719 (N.D. Cal., 2010).
• Marshall v ESPN Inc., 111 F.Supp.3d 815 (M.D. Tenn. 2015), aff’d 668 Fed. Appx. 155 (6^th Cir. 2016).
• No Doubt v. Activision Publishing, Inc., 192 Cal. App. 4^th 1018 (2011).
• O’Bannon v. National Collegiate Athletic Association, 7 F. Supp. 3d 955 (N.D. Cal. 2014), aff’d in part, vacated in part, 802 F.3d 1049 (9^th Cir. 2015), cert. denied, 137 S. Ct. 277 (2016).
• Univ. of Ala. Bd. of Trs. v. New Life Art, Inc., 2013 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 139864 (N.D. Ala., 2013).
• Zacchini v. Scripps-Howard Broadcasting Company, 433 U.S. 562 (1977).

Other useful sources:

• Membership resources on name, image and likeness (n.d.). 
• Rachel Stark-Mason, What name, image and likeness means for college sports.  And how the NCAA is turning to student-athletes to navigate a path forward. 
• Jennifer Hinds, Article: The One-Sided Games of the NCAA: How In Re NCAA Student-Athlete Levels the Playing Field, 35 Loy. L.A. Ent. L. Rev. 95 (2015).
• Mary Catherine Moore, Note: There is no “I” in NCAA: Why College Sports Video Games Do Not Violate College Athletes’ Rights of Publicity Such to Entitle Them to Compensation for use of their Likeness, 18 J. Intell. Prop. L. 269 (2010).
• Dave Zimmerman, Article, Comment & Case Note: College Athletes as Trademarks: How Did We Get Here, and What Happens Next?, 17 Duq. Bus. L.J. 229 (2015).
• Christie Cho, Protecting Johnny Football®:  Trademark Registration for Collegiate Athletes, 13 Northwestern Journal of Technology and Intellectual Property (2015).
• Collin Binkley (Aug. 27, 2015). Looking to future, more NCAA athletes seek own trademarks.  College Football.
• Prosser, W.L. (1960) Privacy, 48 Cal. L. Rev. 383.
• Warren, S. & Brandeis, L. (1890).  The Right to Privacy , 4 Harvard Law Review 93.