Jump to content

Marc Miller (Dallas is Going Down) trying to cash in on the Bills


Recommended Posts

9 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

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.

 

 

Do you know if this would qualify for the public person exception?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

22 minutes ago, End The Drought said:

 

The video belongs to the news station that broadcasted it

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.

 

 

 

 

  • Thank you (+1) 4
Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Steptide said:

 

 

3 minutes ago, Steptide said:

Only way he'll get any money out of this is if he owns the rights to that original news piece. Otherwise, stop being a douche and enjoy your 15 mins of fame 

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?

  • Like (+1) 1
  • Thank you (+1) 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

It appears that he complained about this a month ago.  Not only the Bills, but a beer company who sold beer with his face on the cans.

 

My guess is that he turned to Twitter when the Bills didn't "pay him" enough.

 

https://wben.radio.com/articles/dallas-is-going-down-gary-fan-reflects-on-fame-and-bills

 

From 11/28:

 

“They decided, without my permission, to put a likeness of me on that can of beer,” Miller said. “I was told they sold out of the beer and everything the day they did their introduction of that type of beer. I thought it was very distasteful. Number one, I don’t drink. Not that I’m against alcohol, it’s just never been in my life.”

 

He said he was told by that company they didn’t need to have his permission to use his likeness.

 

“Well I think you’re gonna have a problem with that one legally,” he said. “It’s just not cool to do that in my opinion. I would never take advantage of a client or person for monetary gain. I just wouldn’t do it. To me, it’s just a shame on you for doing that.”

 

He also was caught off guard when the Buffalo Bills used his likeness to promote ticket sales in a commercial.

 

“They should call me and give me a suite or something,” Miller quipped. “You can’t just take a likeness of someone and use it for promotional gain. Unless you’re gonna let me use Josh Allen on my website to promote my company.”

  • Like (+1) 2
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I kind of agree with him using his likeness for the beer sales. I suppose there's technically no difference between the Bills using his likeness for "advertising"/"ticket sales" then there is for a beer company, but he tacitly approved of the Bills with the original intent of the video. 

 

While I think his going after the Bills is in poor taste (I can't speak to the legality), I think the beer company using his image without approval is in even worse taste.

Which is probably appropriate, given what I've heard about the beer...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

17 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

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.

 

I'm sure their use of the video didn't impact their ticket sales in any meaningful way.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 minutes ago, timekills17 said:

I kind of agree with him using his likeness for the beer sales. I suppose there's technically no difference between the Bills using his likeness for "advertising"/"ticket sales" then there is for a beer company, but he tacitly approved of the Bills with the original intent of the video. 

 

While I think his going after the Bills is in poor taste (I can't speak to the legality), I think the beer company using his image without approval is in even worse taste.

Which is probably appropriate, given what I've heard about the beer...

Resurgence said on their twitter that they reached out to him. Not sure what the outcome was. From his comments I'm guessing they reached out and he said well what are you doing for me $$$? They said, well your likeness is public, were not paying you anything we just want you to be apart of this great beer. Kinda disappointed as I was pumped for this release but they were out of stock already when i tried to get some. Kinda glad i didn't now...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

23 minutes ago, Motorin' said:

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.

 

 

 

 

 

You think people buy tickets because of commercials?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

×
×
  • Create New...