44 years later...

[SanDiegoSteve]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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.

[Rich Ives]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

[Forest Ump]

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.

[johnnyg08]

Originally Posted by SanDiegoSteve

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.

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.

[socalblue1]

Originally Posted by johnnyg08

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 silhouette 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.