I haven't spent any significant time dealing with NIL (name, image, and likeness) rights since I wrote a Supreme Court brief on behalf of former college athletes against the NCAA in a pretty well-known case some years ago, but my recollection is that NIL rights exist independently of contractual rights as a matter of state statutory law, so I'm very dubious about just about everything that's been said in this thread about the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this case as a matter of the common law of contracts. That said, this whole dispute seems pretty penny ante, and I wonder about the motives of whoever chose to raise a fuss about this squabble on this site.
It was obviously Madie Boreman or someone related to her posting in her cause. While I had never heard of her before, I looked her up on Instagram and she is indeed fine, but not nearly as fine as Colleen Quigley. So I understand her anger. CQ is definitely the mean girl and will surround herself with baddies but only when they are a little less bad than she is. I think this is just a cat fight. I love that it hit the letsrun forum.
Annie Rodenfels tagged the team in her IG post when she won the 5k on 11/2. So not on the Chrome website but appears to be woth the team still. Unless something happened since 11/2.
It sounds to me that the only reasons she's asking for the "gifts" or monetary equivalent back is in exchange for removal of the Instagram posts. I don't think Quigley is under any obligation to remove those posts. You understand that a contract requires an exchange of consideration, which in this case would be the return of the gifts for the removal of the posts.
Also, maybe I missed it, but where was the threat of legal action?
I haven't spent any significant time dealing with NIL (name, image, and likeness) rights since I wrote a Supreme Court brief on behalf of former college athletes against the NCAA in a pretty well-known case some years ago, but my recollection is that NIL rights exist independently of contractual rights as a matter of state statutory law, so I'm very dubious about just about everything that's been said in this thread about the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this case as a matter of the common law of contracts. That said, this whole dispute seems pretty penny ante, and I wonder about the motives of whoever chose to raise a fuss about this squabble on this site.
I am dubious of your claims. If you were involved in writing a SCOTUS brief in NCAA v. Alston, you know that case was based in anti-trust law in which the NCAA was profiting from athletes' likenesses while simultaneous restricting their ability to profit themselves due to their monopoly over the college athletics market. In other words, the NCAA, due to its monopoly power, was restricting athletes from exercising their NIL and contract rights in an anticompetitive way. Unless you want to argue that Colleen Quigley exercises monopoly power over the female running market, I'm not sure why you're "dubious about just about everything that's been said in this thread about the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this case as a matter of the common law of contracts." Do you not believe that State contract law applies to how individuals exercise and profit from their NIL rights?
Also, I find it interesting that you and your Orrick co-counsel were essentially arguing on behalf of the NCAA. I'd love to know who organized your list of amici.
I haven't spent any significant time dealing with NIL (name, image, and likeness) rights since I wrote a Supreme Court brief on behalf of former college athletes against the NCAA in a pretty well-known case some years ago, but my recollection is that NIL rights exist independently of contractual rights as a matter of state statutory law, so I'm very dubious about just about everything that's been said in this thread about the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this case as a matter of the common law of contracts. That said, this whole dispute seems pretty penny ante, and I wonder about the motives of whoever chose to raise a fuss about this squabble on this site.
I am dubious of your claims. If you were involved in writing a SCOTUS brief in NCAA v. Alston, you know that case was based in anti-trust law in which the NCAA was profiting from athletes' likenesses while simultaneous restricting their ability to profit themselves due to their monopoly over the college athletics market. In other words, the NCAA, due to its monopoly power, was restricting athletes from exercising their NIL and contract rights in an anticompetitive way. Unless you want to argue that Colleen Quigley exercises monopoly power over the female running market, I'm not sure why you're "dubious about just about everything that's been said in this thread about the respective rights and obligations of the parties in this case as a matter of the common law of contracts." Do you not believe that State contract law applies to how individuals exercise and profit from their NIL rights?
You're way out of your league on this. I had effectively retired from the practice of law by the time that the Alston case reached the Supreme Court, and did not participate in its briefing or oral argument in any way. My formal involvement on the NIL claims against the NCAA arose out of the earlier (but closely related) case against Electronic Arts and the NCAA in a matter that, I believe, was denominated in the Ninth Circuit as In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation. See 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013). In that case, Electronic Arts filed a petition for writ of certiorari in the Supreme Court and subsequently settled with the plaintiff athletes, but not before the NCAA filed a motion in the Supreme Court to substitute itself in as the petitioner. I was engaged to respond to the NCAA's motion, which I did successfully. The NCAA thereafter settled with the plaintiffs prior to trial. Adjudication of the antitrust claims against the NCAA followed its efforts to limit the damage caused by the courts' recognition of viable NIL claims of the athletes.
The litigation of these NIL and antitrust claims was tangled, and I chose not to discuss it in my earlier comment. I also chose not to belittle your first-year law student analysis of the contractual issues in this tiny squabble involving Colleen and some athletes who have apparently been members of some team that she put together.
Also, I find it interesting that you and your Orrick co-counsel were essentially arguing on behalf of the NCAA. I'd love to know who organized your list of amici.
My formal involvement on the NIL claims against the NCAA arose out of the earlier (but closely related) case against Electronic Arts and the NCAA in a matter that, I believe, was denominated in the Ninth Circuit as In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litigation. See 724 F.3d 1268 (9th Cir. 2013).
The case in the Ninth Circuit was also denominated as Keller v. Electronic Arts Inc., and was so denominated in the Supreme Court.
You realize that the case you worked on essentially resolved the issues based on the contract that the athlete's signed, right?
Before being allowed to compete each year, all Division I NCAA athletes must sign a contract stating that they understand the prohibition on licensing and affirming that they have not violated any amateurism rules. In short, even if an athlete wished to license his image to EA, the athlete could not do so without destroying amateur status. Thus, an individual college athlete's right of publicity is extraordinarily circumscribed and, in practical reality, nonexistent.5 In sum, even apart from consideration of transformative elements, examination of the right of publicity in question also resolves the balance in favor of the First Amendment. The quantity of players involved dilutes the commercial impact of any particular player and the scope of the publicity right is significantly reduced by the fact that: (1) a player cannot own the individual, publicly available statistics on which the game is based; (2) the players are not identified in the game; and (3) NCAA college athletes do not have the right to license their names and likenesses, even if they chose to do so. In re NCAA Student-Athlete Name & Likeness Licensing Litig., 724 F.3d 1268, 1289 (9th Cir. 2013)
Squigs is batting a thousand in my book. Sorry this past runner had issues with her team, but they should gracefully let it go. Squigs’ IG is genuinely funny. In search of the best breakfast burrito is something all hard working Americans can identify with. Girl is working hard, creating something new, can’t stop, won’t stop.
Oops. Neverminds. Shouldn't be doing this on a lunch break. That is the dissent. mea culpa.
You shouldn't be doing this at any time. You appear to lack the legal skill and knowledge of the pertinent facts and governing law. Just sit back and enjoy the drama, as "Squigscel" has chosen to do.
Fast women newsletter today came out and said Boreman and Camarena felt manipulated into joining the team and that the compensation was not as advertised
Fast women newsletter today came out and said Boreman and Camarena felt manipulated into joining the team and that the compensation was not as advertised
Was Colleen coaching them? Or did they only contribute photos and other fluff?
Fast women newsletter today came out and said Boreman and Camarena felt manipulated into joining the team and that the compensation was not as advertised
Colleen looks so hot with a burrito in her mouth. I am thoroughly enjoying her latest foray into mukbangs.
Fast women newsletter today came out and said Boreman and Camarena felt manipulated into joining the team and that the compensation was not as advertised
Was Colleen coaching them? Or did they only contribute photos and other fluff?
Juli Henner was supposed to be their "advisor," whatever that means.
That's wild Colleen tried to grift Camarena after being basically her only training partner for a number of years.
Was Colleen coaching them? Or did they only contribute photos and other fluff?
Juli Henner was supposed to be their "advisor," whatever that means.
That's wild Colleen tried to grift Camarena after being basically her only training partner for a number of years.
$500 for a virtual mile wasn’t enough for them? Such poors. Wonder of Squigs has any real friends, or just people she can use for social media or otherwise.
Juli Henner was supposed to be their "advisor," whatever that means.
That's wild Colleen tried to grift Camarena after being basically her only training partner for a number of years.
$500 for a virtual mile wasn’t enough for them? Such poors. Wonder of Squigs has any real friends, or just people she can use for social media or otherwise.
$500 for a virtual mile wasn’t enough for them? Such poors. Wonder of Squigs has any real friends, or just people she can use for social media or otherwise.
Fast women newsletter today came out and said Boreman and Camarena felt manipulated into joining the team and that the compensation was not as advertised
Colleen looks so hot with a burrito in her mouth. I am thoroughly enjoying her latest foray into mukbangs.
I had to look up "mukbangs." It was worth it. (It's amazing how rapidly the language is evolving.)