razorburn

Interesting … I’m wondering how legitimate these claimed rights are. U.S. trademark rights are subject to the “use 'em or loose 'em rule.” In other words, you need to be using the mark/ logo in commerce (i.e., for sale) in order to claim any active trademark rights. Case in point, the TM registration for one of the Bills’ old logos was cancelled (See U.S. TM Reg. No. 1,729,458) in 2016 based on the failure to file the required statement of use to maintain the registration. If SLU challenged your screen-printing of an old logo that they no longer use, I’m feeling that you could argue that SLU has lost any rights in the old logos based on abandonment of these rights (i.e., they re-branded and no longer sell apparel with that logo). That said, if they can show that they currently sell apparel with the older logos (i.e., retro gear), they could probably show that they own active rights to the marks (albeit not registered) and challenge the screen printer’s printing of the shirts. That said, they’d have a tough time coming after you individually, provided you are only using the shirts for yourself and not selling them to others. I’m not sure on the strength of any copyright claim they could make. I did a quick check of the U.S. Copyright Office database and did not find any registrations for the logo. *Disclaimer: not legal advice. Consult with an attorney if you are facing a legal issue.

The schools and NCAA play somewhat of a numbers/ accounting game here too. What is the actual “cost of a scholarship” to a school and athletic department? In the context of a university with 10k+ students, a full ride—while undoubtedly of some commercial value— is essentially a seat in a classroom that is going to take place at these schools with or without these athletes. If you “give” 10 full rides away to a basketball team, the school can easily make that up by admitting 10 lay students who are willing to pay the full bill. In sum, the scholarships cost the schools nothing. I’ll concede that there are some added costs associated with the educational experience athletes get (designated counseling staff, travel tutors, room and board etc.), but that is nickels on the dollar when you look at the value assigned to the full-tuition scholarship that most point to when evaluating the “costs” schools have to operate an athletic department. Meanwhile, the athletic department writes this tuition cost off as a loss (crying “we have no profit”), and that money funnels directly back to ... the school itself. Main point being that there’s definitely more money to go around than the balance sheets can make it appear. Just my two cents.

The bolded is not necessarily true. If one reasonably expect a recording to remain private (as private sex tapes usually are), you would need consent to post that recording on social media. Further, there's heightened expectation of privacy that comes with actions in the bedroom (even in there are 2+ parties involved), but I will not get into the nitty gritty there.

Good question. Revenge porn and invasion of privacy are not exclusive of each other. Revenge porn likely constitutes an invasion of privacy and charges could likely be brought under both theories of law. However, not all invasions of privacy cases are revenge porn cases. I haven't done a deep dive of the revenge porn statute in MO, but my limited understanding is that the plaintiff must satisfy the "revenge" element, meaning there's retribution; black mailing, etc. (I think a poster correctly alluded to this above). You don't need to satisfy this revenge element to prove that your privacy was violated. You simply need to show some reasonably private element of your life was exposed. Now, if the prosecutor can some how prove that all three/four players conspired to post the video (which would be extremely difficult to prove), all of them could be in hot water... I'm actually a huge bills fan and supporter; not trying to be overly-negative here. Just wanted to offer some brief speculation of what could unfold. I have a few more thoughts on how I think this could play out, but I'm gonna get back to billing some hours... Looking forward to next season.

Longtime lurker, first time poster. I thought I'd shed some light on this situation based on my somewhat educated opinion on how the "invasion of one's privacy" is a legally malleable concept. I think most posters are spot-on in that when one acts in the presence of 6 others in a room, that action does not come with an expectation of privacy to those six people. However, one does not inherently consent to the release and dissemination of a video of that act (especially a sexual one) to others outside of the room (via a snapchat video or otherwise). In other words, there's an argument available to anyone who was present for the alleged sexual encounter to say, "Yes, I consented to all the actions in the room. Yes, I consented to being video taped. But, I did not consent to publishing the video on social media and acts deemed private among those in the room and made available on video on social media. Therefore, my privacy [as I reasonably expected it to be to those outside of the room] was invaded." That's what I believe the crux of this situation is. Further, even if the video was removed from social media or the internet, there are rules of evidence that will allow for the recovery of the meta-data/ account activity history of anyone who is alleged to have posted the video on the internet/ social media app. They can use this information to put some of the pieces to the puzzle as to when this could have been possibly posted together. As to the "inconsistent statements" argument, there's some shaky ground there no doubt. But, the inconsistent statements could be related to the sexual assault issue and not necessarily the invasion of privacy issue. Feel free to disagree, but this is my speculation as to why the one who allegedly videotaped and posted this video could be in hot water...