The other day, there was a tweet like this.
KONAMIteethProfessional baseballThere was an attempt to monopolize the portrait rights of all the players and prevent other companies from releasing baseball games using their real names, but it is not well known that this person prevented it. pic.twitter.com/cv9pUlIPYg
— Norimaki @ Yakult is the best in Japan again this year! (@norimaki_YS) December 29, 2021
This tweet contains a lot of mistakes. Please see this article in a hurry.
in the first placeKonamiteeth「Professional baseballI tried to monopolize the portrait rights of all the players and prevent other companies from releasing baseball games using their real names. “There is nothing like that.
This was pretty good news. Perhaps the person mentioned above had that in the corner of his head, so it can be inferred that he made such a tweet.
And what was the result of this trial?
In conclusion,Players’ AssociationWas a complete defeat。
That’s why I wrote the previous article without touching the trial, but it’s a good opportunity, so within the scope of my research,「Konami・Baseball mechanismvsJapan Professional Baseball Players Associationreferee”I would like to explain.
First of all, what was the problem?Excerpt from the above news site
Professional baseballThe portrait rights of the players belong to each player, and the “Unified Contract Article 16 Paragraph 1”, which is cited as the basis for the team to have the portrait rights of the players, is for shooting and promoting TV and movies instructed by the team. It claims that it is not a basis for commercial use without the consent of the athletes, just by stipulating.
There is. Roughly summarizing, it seems like “I have a contract with the team, but I haven’t contracted to let my name and face photo be used freely!”
And one more
Players’ AssociationThe company’s own research revealed that the title of a game company was ready for sale, but could not be sold for a long time due to an exclusive contract. Also, regarding the fact that the contract itself was concluded excluding other game companiesCompetitive biddingHe raises doubts about negotiating with only one specific company without taking such measures.
This “title of a game company” isSquareofDrama spaceProfessional baseballThat’s right.In the first place regarding this matterSquareI made a big deal first (see), but I didn’t mention whether I didn’t understand it or it was inconvenient.(as a side noteSquareIs the next work, between Japan and the United StatesProfessional baseballIn FINAL LEAGUEBaseball mechanismNot licensed,Players’ AssociationI am using a real name player with the license of. Instead, the real name team has not appeared)..alsoCompetitive biddingIt is a fact that we did not have a system, and this areaBaseball mechanismIt depends on the amount ofPlayers’ AssociationIt is said that he is dissatisfied.
This trial, which took place in 2002, took place in 2004.KonamiAnd a settlement has been reached.
In the future, both sides will cooperate for the development of the baseball world and hold baseball classes for boys and girls.
It’s a strange reconciliation, but there are circumstances.
KonamiThe side is out of the proceedingsPlayers’ AssociationNegotiated with.KonamiHowever, it seems that there was a judgment that it is not preferable to continue this dispute because it may damage the corporate image.Also on the internetKonamiAgainstdon’t buy sportsThere was also a movement to call for, and we negotiated from various judgments.KonamiFor me, it’s enough to get permission from someone with a legitimate right holder.Players’ AssociationThe battle between the baseball team and the baseball team is, so to speak, an internal conflict within the baseball world. There was nothing I could do if I brought the internal conflict to myself, so I had them talk to me and waited until it was settled. as a result,Players’ AssociationteethKonamiWithdrew the complaint against
soKonamiWhenPlayers’ AssociationHas reached a settlement.KonamiBecause the license had already expired at this pointPlayers’ AssociationHowever, it may not have made much sense to continue the trial.KonamiAlthough I thought that I made a formal contract by formal means“Actually, I didn’t get the consensus of the players.”You must have been surprised at the current situation. It is natural to decide not to extend the exclusive license agreement.
But went againPlayers’ AssociationWhenBaseball mechanismThe discussion did not go well. Therefore, a second lawsuit will be filed.KonamiWithoutBaseball mechanismWhenPlayers’ AssociationWill collide in the trial.
The materials in the high court are open to the public, so here are some excerpts.
In addition, the appellants require specific instructions for “when the team instructs” in the contract clause, but they lack these specific instructions for the use of baseball cards, portraits of game software, etc. Insist not. However, as already discussed, the terms of the contract state that “if the team directs, the athlete consents to be photographed, filmed, or television”, and the team’s instructions are “photographs, movies.” ， Television photography ”is required. And, the main purpose of the activity is to play a baseball game for baseball players (see Article 4 of the Unified Contract Form), and it is a natural premise that the television shooting is done, so it was shot there. It should be said that the video is naturally included in “when the team instructs”.In addition, as for the photographs, as approved above, it is recognized that the photographs were taken according to the instructions of the team, so the above allegations by the appellants cannot be adopted.
Roughly speaking「Players’ AssociationClaims that portrait rights regarding baseball cards and baseball games are out of the contract, but as far as the contract is concerned, that claim does not pass. “It is like that.
Players’ Associationof“It only stipulates the shooting and promotional use of television and movies instructed by the team, but it does not serve as a basis for commercial use without the consent of the players.”The claim has been denied.
In other cases as wellBaseball mechanismThe contract with the players was praised for the fact that portrait rights were distributed and that the contract had been adjusted and renewed many times over the long history.It is endorsed that the “unified contract” between the team and the players can be regarded as a contract that includes portrait rights.Supreme CourtIt means that it came out of.
In addition, the appellants argue that the team has no rationale for controlling portrait rights.However, although it is the theory that athletes naturally have their own portrait rights, including commercial use, it is the first decision of the team, etc. by contract at their own discretion.threeIt is also permissible to entrust the management to the team, and in this case, as mentioned above, it can be recognized that the portrait right in such a sense has granted the exclusive use of the portrait right from the player to the team by contract. And, as mentioned above, the content of the contract clause, which is based on the premise that the team collectively manages the use of the portrait or name of the player for the purpose of promotion, is not unreasonable in itself.Therefore, the appellants’ allegations cannot be adopted.
The second half of the document is like this “Appellant (appellant (Players’ Association) And others’ claims cannot be adopted ”will be seen in a row.Players’ AssociationIn the end, none of his claims passed. “whyCompetitive biddingIn response to the question “Did you not do it?”Baseball mechanismIt is not unreasonable to manage them collectively. “
However, as a result of conducting this trial,Baseball mechanismHas begun to improve his attitude towards the players … that’s not unheard of.
Before filing a portrait rights lawsuit, there were cases where the team did not unilaterally admit the appearance of a player’s commercial just because the player was young, but from now on, unless there is a reasonable reason. It will not be possible to refuse, and it is expected that the portrait rights used by the athletes will be realized.
In addition, before filing a portrait rights lawsuit, there were cases where the team ignored the player’s intentions and unilaterally made products that used the player’s portrait rights, but now the team also has the player’s intentions. Commercialization based on this is becoming widespread.
In this sense, it is a fact that the team’s understanding and consideration for the portrait rights of athletes has been strengthened by filing the portrait rights lawsuit, and I think that the filing of the portrait rights lawsuit had a certain significance.
in this wayPlayers’ AssociationThe situation seems to be improving for the side.
The conclusion of this article is as follows.
1.KonamiDoes not exclusively use the real name license in the first place
2.Players’ AssociationFiled a trial, but all the claims did not pass in the end
3. Through trialPlayers’ AssociationWhenBaseball mechanismStarted to compromise, but these were internal conflicts in the first placeKonamiIs irrelevant
As was the case with the closing of the previous article, it is now in the world of Reiwa.“EvilKonamiThe hero of justice stopped trying to do something terrible. “The story is interesting, but it’s not true.
SoKonamiI think it’s time for rehabilitation.
Hikaru IjuinIt was more than 20 years ago that he showed the ultimate story of “upper, lower, lower and lower litigation rights, litigation rights BA” in the radio section.
Would you like to change your perception soon?