- 6,998
- 2,790
- Joined
- Feb 10, 2008
The difference is pretty clear. Both Kobe and Lebron wore the shoes, while LeBron's High School team was signed to Reebok, and while Bryant was a free agent, then still wearing number 8. Adidas owns Reebok, and they own the number 8 line for their Crazy 8 line, thus allowing usage for Reebok.
Iverson owns his name and image, and has never worn Nike during his pro career.
Just because you wore a sneaker while not being paid for it doesn't give them free rein to release the sneaker years later while using their likeness. Giving Kobe and an underage Lebron free sneakers to wear doesn't mean years later you can profit from it. This is literally the exact same situation and this idea that them wearing a sneaker they weren't paid for making any sort of difference is laughable.
I'm not saying I have any inside information or anything, but the more realistic explanation for why Reebok hasn't been sued is one of two things. It was either not worth the trouble for Lebron and Kobe to sue for such minor monetary gain, or there is a grey area in copyright laws where you can get around paying if the likeness used isn't 100% blatant. This would also mean Iverson didn't really have a case.
I'd love to see some information that says you can use the likeness of a person if they wear your product while not being under contract.
Last edited: