Headline issues for brands to consider when negotiating athlete publicity licenses
California Senate Bill 206,1 the “Fair Pay to Play Act,” was amended again last month, and is making its way through the legislature under sponsorship by Sen. Nancy Skinner-D and Sen. Steven Bradford-D. If passed, the new law would pave the way for college athletes in California to earn compensation—including a stipend or other financial incentive from the college itself—for licensing their name, image, or likeness. The law would also allow athletes to obtain legal representation in connection with their participation in college sports, all while maintaining scholarship eligibility and amateurism under the National Collegiate Athletics Association’s (NCAA) Division I and II eligibility criteria.2
This potential creation of a new pool of influencers and brand ambassadors provides marketing teams and their counsel an opportunity to brush up on publicity licensing issues facing marketers in the digital age. This blog recaps a few of the key points to be aware of.
To continue reading or watching login or register here
Already a member? Sign in
Get access to all of the expert analysis and commentary at LawInSport including articles, webinars, conference videos and podcast transcripts. Find out more here.
- Tags: Commercial | Contract | Fair Pay to Play Act | Image Rights | Intellectual Property | National Collegiate Athletics Association (NCAA) | Trade Mark Copyright | United States of America (USA)
- Sponsorships contracts: morality, reverse morality and integrity
- Managing athletes image rights in Italy: Key considerations for structuring and accounting under the new tax regime
- Why Spain’s approach to taxing image rights and agency income is discouraging overseas footballers
- Image rights and international footballers: the curious case of Mohamed Salah and the Egypt Football Association
Associate, Sheppard Mullin
Robert Hough is an associate in the Intellectual Property Practice Group in the Sheppard Mullin’s Dallas office.