Editing Talk:2210: College Athletes
Please sign your posts with ~~~~ |
Warning: You are not logged in. Your IP address will be publicly visible if you make any edits. If you log in or create an account, your edits will be attributed to your username, along with other benefits.
The edit can be undone.
Please check the comparison below to verify that this is what you want to do, and then save the changes below to finish undoing the edit.
Latest revision | Your text | ||
Line 11: | Line 11: | ||
Is the category [[:Category:Comics featuring real people]] applicable here? It does seem to feature some comics where real people are only mentioned... Others with real people are not in that category... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | Is the category [[:Category:Comics featuring real people]] applicable here? It does seem to feature some comics where real people are only mentioned... Others with real people are not in that category... --[[User:Lupo|Lupo]] ([[User talk:Lupo|talk]]) 12:56, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
:Added to the category. Makes sense to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.107|172.69.33.107]] 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | :Added to the category. Makes sense to me. [[Special:Contributions/172.69.33.107|172.69.33.107]] 18:48, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | + | == "... but he ''curries'' on..."?? == | |
+ | |||
The explanation includes the sentence "Ponytail doesn't believe him but he ''curries'' on...". | The explanation includes the sentence "Ponytail doesn't believe him but he ''curries'' on...". | ||
+ | |||
I don't see a reason for the use of "curries" vs. the normal "carries", except that the explanation writer is adding an additional (unnecessary) pun. I'd suggest changing it back to the idiomatic "carries on". -- 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | I don't see a reason for the use of "curries" vs. the normal "carries", except that the explanation writer is adding an additional (unnecessary) pun. I'd suggest changing it back to the idiomatic "carries on". -- 16:34, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
The explanation states that Cueball is implying that his school is from a state other than California, but I don't see any such implication in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.35|162.158.79.35]] 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | The explanation states that Cueball is implying that his school is from a state other than California, but I don't see any such implication in the comic. [[Special:Contributions/162.158.79.35|162.158.79.35]] 18:20, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | ||
− | |||
− | |||
− | + | Second panel "Our state gave..." [[User:Bugstomper|Bugstomper]] ([[User talk:Bugstomper|talk]]) 19:13, 2 October 2019 (UTC) | |
+ | |||
+ | == The laws misunderstood? == | ||
+ | |||
+ | |||
First, the California law, which "gives athletes rights to their names and likeness". In reality the athletes always had rights to their names and likeness. What the new law allows is for the athletes to license their names/likeness to commercial companies, and receive renumeration for that. Thus, Cueball's summary of the law, even though not incorrect, if taken literally can be misunderstood that the athletes had no rights to their names before. | First, the California law, which "gives athletes rights to their names and likeness". In reality the athletes always had rights to their names and likeness. What the new law allows is for the athletes to license their names/likeness to commercial companies, and receive renumeration for that. Thus, Cueball's summary of the law, even though not incorrect, if taken literally can be misunderstood that the athletes had no rights to their names before. | ||
Then the "other state"'s law, which "gives players rights to use the names and images of ANY California athlete". This is not a real law, so there is a considerable latitude in its possible meaning. This law's summary is intentionally constructed in such a way as to mimic the California's law summary, but that doesn't mean its meaning should be taken literally. I believe that it is *unlikely* that Randall intended this law to be taken literally, mainly because such law would likely be unconstitutional (if one state recognizes name/likeness as a property, then another state may not violate those property rights). What I think the law actually means is that that state's athletes can use *as their own* the name/likeness of another player, provided that they licensed that name/likeness legally. Thus, it's a pun on the word "use": usually when companies "use athlete's name/likeness" means they produce ads featuring those athletes; whereas in the Cueball's state to "use athlete's name/likeness" would mean to adopt it as your own. | Then the "other state"'s law, which "gives players rights to use the names and images of ANY California athlete". This is not a real law, so there is a considerable latitude in its possible meaning. This law's summary is intentionally constructed in such a way as to mimic the California's law summary, but that doesn't mean its meaning should be taken literally. I believe that it is *unlikely* that Randall intended this law to be taken literally, mainly because such law would likely be unconstitutional (if one state recognizes name/likeness as a property, then another state may not violate those property rights). What I think the law actually means is that that state's athletes can use *as their own* the name/likeness of another player, provided that they licensed that name/likeness legally. Thus, it's a pun on the word "use": usually when companies "use athlete's name/likeness" means they produce ads featuring those athletes; whereas in the Cueball's state to "use athlete's name/likeness" would mean to adopt it as your own. | ||
− | Such interpretation is confirmed in the last panel: "one player got the rights to his name, ...". Thus, the first player had to obtain those rights, presumably paying to the original name owner. However, once that player adopted the name as his own - he is now free to license the name to the next player on his team, and so on (presumably at a huge discount). | + | Such interpretation is confirmed in the last panel: "one player got the rights to his name, ...". Thus, the first player had to obtain those rights, presumably paying to the original name owner. However, once that player adopted the name as his own - he is now free to license the name to the next player on his team, and so on (presumably at a huge discount). |
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− | |||
− |