Hostility or Passion? Who Decides?

Have you ever worked in a hostile work environment?  If you have, you can understand the stress and mental anguish it can cause.  Not just on your mental abilities but how you perform your job physically as well.  The players under the coaching style of Mike Rice know a hostile work environment first-hand, or do they?  Basketball is not your typical nine to five corporate job, so who decides when a coach has taken his tactics too far and how fine is the line that separates abuse from passion?  According to an article on CBS Sports, former player Austin Johnson states, “at this level, some of that is to be expected.”  This comment suggests there may be some un-written rule to what it takes to be a college player potentially trained for the road to the NBA. 

According to Rutgers contract with Rice, a breach of contract may be subject to perception of Rice’s coaching practices.  An article written by Terrence Payne offers a portion of the contract between Rutgers and Rice and it states:

“Material breach of this contract (won-loss record shall not constitute material breach), neglect of duty, willful misconduct, act(s) of moral turpitude, conduct tending to bring shame or disgrace to the University as determined in good faith by the Director of Intercollegiate Athletics, violation of University regulations, policies, procedures or directives not remedied after thirty (30) days written notice,…criminal conviction, or unapproved absence from duty, other than for a bona fide use of sick leave in accordance with University policy, without the consent of the director.”

When you compare the comments of Austin Johnson to the terms of Rice’s contract, it seems as if this behavior is normal when a student wants to play on a collegiate level.  How do we decipher Rice’s actions to kick his players while coaching them as abuse but accept the occasional “butt pat” of a player as a sign the player has done a good job.  To an outside on-looker, the “butt pat” can be perceived as inappropriate touching but it’s acceptable because we do not associate it with misconduct or acts of moral turpitude.

I am not writing this blog to condone the behavior of Mike Rice but this is just another case in which perception has more ground than what is actually right.  As I try to remain objective in my posts, I cannot help but wonder would Mike Rice still be employed if the coaching video had not gone viral.  Also, what was it that kept the players from seeking some type of justices for themselves?  Maybe, they didn’t realize they were victims of physical and verbal abuse and that’s when perception becomes dangerous.

Copyright Infringement or Fair Use?

This is a logo drawn by Frederick Bouchat in 1995 and submitted to the Baltimore Ravens as a potential logo for their team. In return, Mr. Bouchat wanted a letter giving him credit for the logo design and an autographed team helmet.  This didn’t seem like much to ask considering he was the designer of the logo.

Now, this is the design used by the Baltimore Ravens in their first three seasons as well as a documentary film following the team.  Do you see any similarities?  Absolutely, there is no question that this is an almost duplicate version of the logo designed by Frederick Bouchat in 1995.  Now, despite the fact that he was not credited with the design nor did he receive his autographed team helmet, does he have a legal right to sue for copyright infringement?  Not only does he have the right, but also he has actually tried to sue the Baltimore Ravens numerous times since 1995 over copyright infringement.  Yet, my most pressing question is, why does Hollywood care?  Why are they involved or have any say in this matter whatsoever? 

If you ever find yourself wondering what is the root cause of most lawsuits, or why such a large entity such as Hollywood gets involved in anything, follow the money!  The only interest Hollywood has in this case is the fact that if Bouchat happens to win this case, it will cause problems, financial in nature, for every Hollywood film using logos and other copyrighted material in their films.  Fair use, which is the ability to use copyrighted material in non-profit, educational purposes, is the defense mechanism being used against Frederick Bouchat in order to avoid repercussions from a lost lawsuit.

According to an article posted on Stanford.edu, a win for Bouchat concerning the copyright materials in the documentary film could pose a real threat to documentary filmmakers, news organizations and public broadcasters.  This certainly is true as fair use allows certain copyrighted material to be used when educating or discussing historic events.  Regardless of my opinion, or what anyone thinks the outcome should be, Bouchat feels as if his copyright infringement rights have been violated but he may have to settle for the fact that the Baltimore Ravens have changed their logo and they are no longer using his version of the logo in their advertisements or documentaries.

Although Bouchat has received recognition for his version of the Baltimore Ravens logo, he never received monetary compensation.  As a filmmaker and a student currently studying Sports Management, I agree with both sides of the case.  I agree that Bouchat should have received his recognition in the beginning and when he wasn’t, he should have received monetary compensation after winning his lawsuit.  I also agree with the Baltimore Ravens and the MPAA, this case shouldn’t allow Bouchat to dictate whether or not the logo appears in the documentary or video games because it could change the entire dynamic of Fair Use when it comes to copyrighted materials used correctly under this law.