Motorin'

If it was a catch, how is his forward progress not stopped? Okudah can just run him backwards and strip the ball? That's why the forward progress rule was out in place to begin with. Also on the targeting play, I thought the Chase Young punch to the throat was far more vicious and the thing that injured Lawrence. Should have been two flags on the play.

Then I hope McD is specifically calling on Allen to improve on opening drives. One of the things I like about Allen, he seems to have the ability to fix specific areas of his game when he puts his mind to it.

I agree, but how was that not a personal foul on Chase Young for clothes lining Lawrence as he's going down? That was more ejectable imo. He punched him in the throat.

Me too, first game was against the Fins at home in 81. I remember Jerry Butler catching a TD and toilet paper streaming onto the field. It was awesome!

The laws very greatly by state, and by usage. Some states have extremely restrictive privacy laws, where it can be an actual prosecutable crime to use images of recognizable people in advertising without their consent. The way the Bills used the clip was in a commercial, which is the definition of commercial usage. What's at question is whether Marc signed away his rights to NBC when they filmed it. That's the only way that NBC could license the clip for commerical purposes without Marc having a claim. But they license news clips under "fair use" all the time. So it's very possible that the Bills owe Marc a usage fee.

Gary passed away about 10 years ago. RIP https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_Michael_(sportscaster)

You might be right, if the original interview took place during a Bills game and was filmed by the Bills or the NFL. But probably not if it was a man on the street interview conducted by a news organization off premise and not during an NFL game.

There's a chance you're right. But only if Marc signed away the rights to his likeness at the time of the original filming. A lot of news companies don't use rights waivers though bc they don't need rights to broadcast news. And while it's ok for news companies to license the footage they shoot to be used in other news stories and documentaries that are covered under fair use laws, advertising purposes don't fall under fair rights usage. So it's certainly within the realm of possibility that ABC (or whoever it was) licensed the footage to the Bills for a purpose they didn't have the right to license it for. You can dislike the way Marc Miller has handled the situation on Twitter, but I don't understand why people think the little guy has no rights and the billion dollar corporation is automatic the good guy. I'd be pissed if my face was all over the internet to advertise a product without my consent, even if it was my favorite product. And I think anybody should be pissed if that happened to them. I happen to believe that people should have a say in how their image is exploited.

Wanna bet?

Don't think he represents the billion dollar corporation that used Marc Miller's likeness to advertise their product.

Looks like it took a solid 3rd round pick.

You know what's funny, the name of the show Marc was featured on was called "George Michael's Sports Machine." I think Marc misspoke and called him Gary instead of George. And I'm personally interested in it because i work in advertising / video production. I see what people get paid to appear in ads, and I license video clips all the time... How much do you think the Bills paid their ad firm to produce that commercial?

The Bills have streamed that video millions of times this year. His clip certainly had value, or why else would they have chosen to use it in the 30 secs they dedicated to advertising? I'm really interested in finding out how they aquired it, and if Mark had signed his rights away. If he did, he has no ground to stand on. But if he didn't sign his rights away to the original news broadcast, then he's entitled to a usage fee. And believe me, the fee is always way higher after it's been viewed by a mass market.

People apparently love excuses to act like *****.

I don't think there's much strategy going on here, just a guy thinking out loud on Twitter.

I think the Bills should work something out with him. I don't understand why people in Buffalo can't allow other people's grievances to be heard without this "your dead to me" attitude.

The Bills allow their logo to be used on fan sites bc it promotes their brand. It's organic advertising for them. They made that decision. Pinto Ron agreed to be filmed for the NBC spot. Does that mean that Pinto cars can take his face and slap it on their ads? Mark Miller agreed to be filmed for a sports show, that doesn't necessarily mean it's ok for a corporation to repurpose his face for their advertising purposes without his consent.

I think the Bills spend hundreds of thousands of dollars a year advertising, maybe a few million. And they do one big 30 second commercial each year that they use to sell Tix and merch. That commercial used Mark Miller this year. Unless Mark Miller signed his rights to his likeness away at the time of the original taping, the Bills should license his likeness if they want to use it in advertising.

So, if you got interviewed by a news channel about your favorite beer, and later on your face was on bill boards promoting that beer all across the country, you don't think you own the rights to your own image?

The video itself does, but unless he signed his rights away, he still owns the rights to his likeness and voice. I also don't get the animosity here. The Bills are a billion dollar company and used the guy in a commercial to sell a couple million dollars worth of tickets.

It depends, if he signed a release at the time of filming, that release likely granted the company rights to his image and voice in perpetuity. They would also likely have the right to license it. But a lot of news channels don't use releases for "news" bc their footage is covered under the first amendment ... If the company that originally filmed didn't use a release that granted them the rights to the footage and the rights to assign it, Mark has a case. No it's not. You can't use news footage without paying the company that filmed it. And it costs a pretty penny. But there's a difference between news footage and using a person's likeness and personality to sell in advertising.

He's totally right. You can't use someone's voice and image in advertising without licensing those rights. He's going to get paid, and he should. That's how the world works.

If I'm Dawson Knox, I'm spending the off season with one of those ball machines, taking 1000 reps a day. He has the potential to be special.

Which leads me to believe it's a mental ) concentration thing rather than a "bad hands" thing. Guys with bad hands don't make those catches.

People need to put the Blame Thrower down. Milano and the defense had a bad game bc the Patriots game plan was exceptional.