※ 引述《xijo (章魚燒)》之銘言：
: 標題: [新聞] 貼自己照片也出事？詹皇又被告了
: 時間: Tue Mar 24 15:46:34 2020
https://reurl.cc/exEZoL
Analyzing the Copyright Lawsuit Against LeBron James
分析對於LeBron James的著作權訴訟
Even though James is clearly the focus of Mitchell’s photo, that fact has no
bearing on the photo’s ownership. It is Mitchell’s photo. That’s not to say
James lacks rights in how a photo of him is used. James enjoys a “right of
publicity” that encompasses his image in photos. While the scope of the right
of publicity varies by state, and while the First Amendment sometimes limits
its application, the right generally protects one’s name, image, likeness and
associated identity traits from unauthorized commercial use. James can sue
violators for misappropriating his right of publicity.
儘管James顯然是Mitchell照片中的焦點，但實際上上與照片的所有權無關。這不是說James
沒有權利使用他的照片。James享有肖像權，其中包括他在照片中的形象。雖然肖像權保障
範圍因州而異，而且第一修正案會限制其適用，該權利通常保護個人的姓名、形象、肖像
和相關的身份特徵，防止未經授權的商業使用。James可以起訴侵害其肖像權的侵權者。
If the right of publicity sounds similar to the ongoing legal and legislative
debate over college athletes’ names, images and likenesses, that’s because it
is. There is no federal right of publicity, but advocates for college athletes
have demanded one given that NCAA amateurism rules generally forbid athletes
from being able to license their names, images and likenesses. James’s right
of publicity during NBA games is not at issue here. James, like all NBA
players, is governed by in-game and out-of-game licensing policies agreed to by
the National Basketball Players’ Association and the NBA. Those policies
include the right for professional photos to be taken of players during games.
如果肖像權聽起來與正在進行中的關於大學運動員姓名、形象以及肖像的法律以及立法辯論
相似，那是因為這兩者是一樣的。沒有聯邦立法保障肖像權，但基於NCAA業餘性規則通常會
禁止運動員授權其姓名、形象和肖像，因此大學運動員的倡導者已經要求這樣做。
James在NBA比賽中的肖像權在這裡並不是問題。和所有NBA球員一樣，受到美國國家籃球運
動員協會和NBA同意的場內和場外授權政策的約束。這些政策包括在比賽期間，球員可以被
拍攝專業照片的權利。
文章中提到，James可能可以主張合理使用：
One likely defense is “fair use.” This defense would assert that while
Mitchell may be the rightful owner of the original photo, James’s
publication of a cropped version was permissible.
或者主張是非營利，單純是James想要和粉絲們慶祝他的扣籃，並讓他們知道扣籃新聞。
James’s attorneys could argue that the purpose of the Facebook post was to
celebrate his dunk with fans and to let them know the “news” of the dunk
happening. The post, James’s attorneys could contend, wasn’t intended to
earn income for James. Indeed, the post is available without charge for
anyone with access to Facebook. Also, Facebook hasn’t taken down the post
for violating its terms and conditions (Mitchell’s complaint doesn’t
indicate if a take-down request was made to Facebook).
或者是主張James不會影響Mitchell著作的市場價值
In terms of the impact of James’s post on Mitchell’s market for the photo,
James’s attorneys might maintain that Mitchell could still license the
original version. Unless Mitchell can prove he lost potential licensing
money, James’s attorneys could insist there is no reason to believe that
James posting a cropped version impacted the market.
:
: 貼自己照片也出事？詹皇又被告了
:
: 記者鄭廷瑋／綜合報導
:
: 美國武漢肺炎（COVID-19、新冠肺炎）疫情爆發，NBA也受到波及宣布無限期停賽，球員
: 們紛紛遵照CDC指示在家自主隔離、並且閒到發慌，不過洛杉磯湖人球星「詹皇」LeBron
: James接下來則有得忙了，據報遭人提告他侵權。
:
: https://attach.setn.com/newsimages/2018/11/19/1648866-XXL.jpg
:
: ▲湖人球星「詹皇」LeBron James傳出遭攝影師提告。
:
: 根據《運動畫刊》記者Michael McCann律師撰文報導，James遭一位攝影師提告侵犯版權
: ，全因他在12月15日於IG、臉書上貼出了一張湖人作客邁阿密熱火的比賽中，自己在熱火
: 中鋒Meyers Leonard頭上狠狠暴扣的照片。
:
: https://attach.setn.com/newsimages/2020/03/24/2471065-XXL.jpg
:
: ▲James據報是貼出這張照片而被告。
:
: 這張照片是由一位名叫Steve Mitchell的攝影師所拍下，Mitchell委任一位紐約的版權律
: 師Richard Liebowitz對James提起侵犯版權訴訟，並向James求償15萬美元（約台幣454萬
: ），全案目前由前聯邦檢察官Ronnie Abrams法官受理中。
:
: 人紅是非多，連貼自己的照片都會被告，不過，值得一提的是，這不是James近來唯一被
: 捲入的官司，2月時就曾因廣泛使用「我不只是一名運動員（I Am More Than An Athlete
: ）」標語在商品上，遭到一間非營利機構提告侵犯商標。
--
: 標題: [新聞] 貼自己照片也出事？詹皇又被告了
: 時間: Tue Mar 24 15:46:34 2020
https://reurl.cc/exEZoL
Analyzing the Copyright Lawsuit Against LeBron James
分析對於LeBron James的著作權訴訟
Even though James is clearly the focus of Mitchell’s photo, that fact has no
bearing on the photo’s ownership. It is Mitchell’s photo. That’s not to say
James lacks rights in how a photo of him is used. James enjoys a “right of
publicity” that encompasses his image in photos. While the scope of the right
of publicity varies by state, and while the First Amendment sometimes limits
its application, the right generally protects one’s name, image, likeness and
associated identity traits from unauthorized commercial use. James can sue
violators for misappropriating his right of publicity.
儘管James顯然是Mitchell照片中的焦點，但實際上上與照片的所有權無關。這不是說James
沒有權利使用他的照片。James享有肖像權，其中包括他在照片中的形象。雖然肖像權保障
範圍因州而異，而且第一修正案會限制其適用，該權利通常保護個人的姓名、形象、肖像
和相關的身份特徵，防止未經授權的商業使用。James可以起訴侵害其肖像權的侵權者。
If the right of publicity sounds similar to the ongoing legal and legislative
debate over college athletes’ names, images and likenesses, that’s because it
is. There is no federal right of publicity, but advocates for college athletes
have demanded one given that NCAA amateurism rules generally forbid athletes
from being able to license their names, images and likenesses. James’s right
of publicity during NBA games is not at issue here. James, like all NBA
players, is governed by in-game and out-of-game licensing policies agreed to by
the National Basketball Players’ Association and the NBA. Those policies
include the right for professional photos to be taken of players during games.
如果肖像權聽起來與正在進行中的關於大學運動員姓名、形象以及肖像的法律以及立法辯論
相似，那是因為這兩者是一樣的。沒有聯邦立法保障肖像權，但基於NCAA業餘性規則通常會
禁止運動員授權其姓名、形象和肖像，因此大學運動員的倡導者已經要求這樣做。
James在NBA比賽中的肖像權在這裡並不是問題。和所有NBA球員一樣，受到美國國家籃球運
動員協會和NBA同意的場內和場外授權政策的約束。這些政策包括在比賽期間，球員可以被
拍攝專業照片的權利。
文章中提到，James可能可以主張合理使用：
One likely defense is “fair use.” This defense would assert that while
Mitchell may be the rightful owner of the original photo, James’s
publication of a cropped version was permissible.
或者主張是非營利，單純是James想要和粉絲們慶祝他的扣籃，並讓他們知道扣籃新聞。
James’s attorneys could argue that the purpose of the Facebook post was to
celebrate his dunk with fans and to let them know the “news” of the dunk
happening. The post, James’s attorneys could contend, wasn’t intended to
earn income for James. Indeed, the post is available without charge for
anyone with access to Facebook. Also, Facebook hasn’t taken down the post
for violating its terms and conditions (Mitchell’s complaint doesn’t
indicate if a take-down request was made to Facebook).
或者是主張James不會影響Mitchell著作的市場價值
In terms of the impact of James’s post on Mitchell’s market for the photo,
James’s attorneys might maintain that Mitchell could still license the
original version. Unless Mitchell can prove he lost potential licensing
money, James’s attorneys could insist there is no reason to believe that
James posting a cropped version impacted the market.
:
: 貼自己照片也出事？詹皇又被告了
:
: 記者鄭廷瑋／綜合報導
:
: 美國武漢肺炎（COVID-19、新冠肺炎）疫情爆發，NBA也受到波及宣布無限期停賽，球員
: 們紛紛遵照CDC指示在家自主隔離、並且閒到發慌，不過洛杉磯湖人球星「詹皇」LeBron
: James接下來則有得忙了，據報遭人提告他侵權。
:
: https://attach.setn.com/newsimages/2018/11/19/1648866-XXL.jpg
: ▲湖人球星「詹皇」LeBron James傳出遭攝影師提告。
:
: 根據《運動畫刊》記者Michael McCann律師撰文報導，James遭一位攝影師提告侵犯版權
: ，全因他在12月15日於IG、臉書上貼出了一張湖人作客邁阿密熱火的比賽中，自己在熱火
: 中鋒Meyers Leonard頭上狠狠暴扣的照片。
:
: https://attach.setn.com/newsimages/2020/03/24/2471065-XXL.jpg
: ▲James據報是貼出這張照片而被告。
:
: 這張照片是由一位名叫Steve Mitchell的攝影師所拍下，Mitchell委任一位紐約的版權律
: 師Richard Liebowitz對James提起侵犯版權訴訟，並向James求償15萬美元（約台幣454萬
: ），全案目前由前聯邦檢察官Ronnie Abrams法官受理中。
:
: 人紅是非多，連貼自己的照片都會被告，不過，值得一提的是，這不是James近來唯一被
: 捲入的官司，2月時就曾因廣泛使用「我不只是一名運動員（I Am More Than An Athlete
: ）」標語在商品上，遭到一間非營利機構提告侵犯商標。
--
All Comments