Standing to Kneel: Analyzing NFL Players’ Freedom to Protest During the Playing of the U.S. National Anthem

This Article analyzes whether an NFL player who protests during the national anthem has any legal recourse if he is fired—or not hired—as a result of his political protests. Part I of this Article describes the history of NFL players engaging in political protests during the national anthem. Part II explores whether the firing of an NFL player for his political protests would violate the player’s constitutional right to free speech. Finally, Part III discusses whether the firing—or not hiring—of an NFL player for his political protests would violate the player’s rights under the terms of the league’s collective bargaining agreement

Keynote Address: A Sure Bet? The Legal Status of Daily Fantasy Sports

Today, I will provide an overview of the legal status of “daily fantasy sports” and explain why the legality—or illegality—of the industry is not a sure bet. I will begin by providing a brief background of the origins of fantasy sports, and then turn to the impact of technologies such as the Internet, and the legal status of these games under both federal and state laws. I will conclude by discussing the recent efforts to regulate “daily fantasy sports” through the courts and legislatio

Closing the “Free Speech” Loophole: The Case for Protecting College Athletes’ Publicity Rights in Commercial Video Games

When Electronic Arts Inc. (Electronic Arts) launched its video game series NCAA Football in June 1993, the available technology limited developers to crafting avatars that looked like faceless figurines. Today, however, advancements in digital technology have enabled developers to create “virtual players” that strongly resemble their real-life counterparts. For example, in NCAA Football 12, the avatar that represents University of Florida running back Chris Rainey possesses Chris Rainey’s actual height, weight, skin complexion, and hair style. In addition, both Chris Rainey and his virtual counterpart wear the same jersey number, visor, gloves, and sweatbands. Recently, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Taylor Branch criticized video game publishers for failing to pay for the use of college athletes’ likenesses. According to Branch, failing to pay for college athletes’ likenesses not only leads to windfall profits for video game publishers, but also transforms college athletes into a “profit center” for their business partner, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). At the core of intellectual property law, there lies a well-established principle that “if you create something, then that something is . . . yours to exploit.” Based upon this principle, courts have generally disallowed the unlicensed, commercial use of celebrity likenesses. Nevertheless, courts have failed to protect the publicity rights of Division I college athletes. Instead, they have created a First Amendment loophole to circumvent college athletes’ rights. This Article argues that despite First Amendment concerns, courts should protect college athletes’ publicity rights in commercial video games

Closing the “Free Speech” Loophole: The Case for Protecting College Athletes’ Publicity Rights in Commercial Video Games

When Electronic Arts Inc. (Electronic Arts) launched its video game series NCAA Football in June 1993, the available technology limited developers to crafting avatars that looked like faceless figurines. Today, however, advancements in digital technology have enabled developers to create “virtual players” that strongly resemble their real-life counterparts. For example, in NCAA Football 12, the avatar that represents University of Florida running back Chris Rainey possesses Chris Rainey’s actual height, weight, skin complexion, and hair style. In addition, both Chris Rainey and his virtual counterpart wear the same jersey number, visor, gloves, and sweatbands. Recently, Pulitzer Prize-winning journalist Taylor Branch criticized video game publishers for failing to pay for the use of college athletes’ likenesses. According to Branch, failing to pay for college athletes’ likenesses not only leads to windfall profits for video game publishers, but also transforms college athletes into a “profit center” for their business partner, the National Collegiate Athletic Association (NCAA). At the core of intellectual property law, there lies a well-established principle that “if you create something, then that something is . . . yours to exploit.” Based upon this principle, courts have generally disallowed the unlicensed, commercial use of celebrity likenesses. Nevertheless, courts have failed to protect the publicity rights of Division I college athletes. Instead, they have created a First Amendment loophole to circumvent college athletes’ rights. This Article argues that despite First Amendment concerns, courts should protect college athletes’ publicity rights in commercial video games