Huh,
 

Why wouldn't Harmon himself be suing?

Yeah, come to think of it, why are they burying him so soon?:confused:

My Uni Watch membership card is hung on my office file cabinet -- by my Uni Watch magnet, naturally.

My number on the roster is the same as on my umpire shirts -- 7. However, my card is done in Philadelphia Flyers home black.

http://www.uniwatchblog.com/?page_id=500

http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2295/...50db55.jpg?v=0

Really. He's only 72 years old.

Not a lawyer, but if he's an employee of MLB, MLB could probably use any player image they wish to market their product...so I don't think he'd be entitled to any type of royalty since it's not really intellectual property...but who knows.

I'm pretty sure that this is incorrect. The players work for MLB, but are not owned by MLB. Slavery was outlawed during the Lincoln administration.

It would depend on what's in the contract.

This thread has led me to look up Harmon Killerbrews web site where I found the following quote.

"The homers he hit against us would be homers in any park, including Yellowstone."
-- manager Paul Richards

Gotta luv it.

How would they know? I can't remember the last time a coach actually spent much time inside one of those boxes.

You could be right...but they under the governing body of MLB...can't MLB use whatever pictures/video clips/etc...to market their product?

It's not a slavery thing...at least that's not how I'm seeing it.

If the commissioner can suspend a player, there certainly are rules that players must follow under league policies, there is an employer/employee relationship. Yes, they get paid by the teams...but the league still has some say over the player's actions.

Consider Dante Stallworth & Michael Vick. The league suspended them. Consider Manny. The league suspended Manny, not the Dodgers.

Maybe other posters are right, I'm not saying I'm right or wrong...but if it's his image, since he was employed by MLB, if that's the contractual agreement, then they can use the image...but I think another poster said that it's not Harmon, but a sillouette not resembling any player.

I would suspect that in the MLB Players Union contract there are terms where there is some type of revenue split for licensing pictures and the like for current & former players. I'm not sure exactly how this pays out (IE: pool shared by all &/or ??) but it's common for pro leagues.

Several former NFL players are suing the NFL & players union over something similar. Don't recall the exact details now but it seems they are not receiving the correct payment for using their likenesses in video games, etc.

I knew the AL once wore red jackets, makes sense they would be the ones to try white suits too. :D

And jeez, Bruce, don't you travel with more than one pair of plate pants? ;)

You can tell this author is biased against umpires (who isn't?). He said Froemming "pathetically" kicked the dirt off the plate the rest of the game. So what? The foot-brush works just fine, and I'm sure he didn't look pathetic doing it.

I don't think it's possible for Froemming to look pathetic doing anything on the field.

On the field, Froemming looked pathetic just squeezing that load into an umpire uniform.

Off the field he looked beyond pathetic when he called an umpire adminstrator a "Jew b!tch."