Joe Frazier vs. Floyd Cummings - Revision history

Boxsoup at 00:29, 2 December 2014

2014-12-02T00:29:06Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 00:29, 2 December 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
	[[File:Frazier-Cummings.jpg\|right\|~~frame~~\|Frazier hits Cummings with a left hook]]		[[File:Frazier-Cummings.jpg\|right\|thumb\|325px\|Frazier hits Cummings with a left hook]]
	<fight>17965</fight>		<fight>17965</fight>
			*[[:File:Joe-frazier-Jumbo-cummings.jpg\|Fight Photo]]

	~~In June 2008~~, ~~Floyd "Jumbo"~~ Cummings, ~~serving~~ a ~~life sentence for armed robbery~~, ~~sued ESPN Classic in an Illinois state court for $50 million~~. ~~He claimed~~ a ~~telecast~~ of his ~~fight with Joe Frazier that aired in August~~ and ~~September 2007 "exploited~~ his ~~name, identity and personality~~."		==Notes==
			*This was Frazier's first fight in 5½ years. It was also his last fight.
			*Frazier's purse was $85,000, and Cummings' was $10,000.
			*There was a crowd of about 6,500.
			*[[Marvis Frazier]] served as his father's chief second.
			*The Associated Press reported: "Frazier had a role of fat around his middle—he weighed 229 pounds—and he showed his age and the effects of his long absence from the ring."

	Cummings ~~claimed~~ ESPN violated the Right of Publicity Act ~~when it used~~ his name ~~and identity~~ for commercial purposes.		'''Cummings' lawsuit against ESPN Classic'''

			In June 2008, Floyd "Jumbo" Cummings, serving a life sentence for armed robbery at Menard Correctional Center in Illinois, filed a lawsuit in a state court in Randolph County, Illinois, alleging that [[ESPN]] Classic violated his rights by re-broadcasting his 1981 fight against Frazier in August and September 2007. Cummings contended that ESPN Classic violated his rights under the Illinois Right of Publicity Act by using his name for commercial purposes without permission. For its part, ESPN denied ever showing a replay of the 1981 bout.

	~~ESPN filed a motion~~ to ~~dismiss~~, ~~arguing it did not~~ re-broadcast the ~~Frazier~~-~~Cummings fight~~ of ~~December 1981~~.		According to Cummings’ complaint, because of the alleged re-broadcast of the bout, “I was and am greatly injured, in that my personality has been violated by being exposed, exhibited and sold to the public; my name has been cheapened and made notorious; I have been subjected to the contempt, ridicule, and inquisitive nature of the general public to the injury of my personality and to the outrage of the finer sentiments of my nature and to the humiliation of my self-respect; my peace of mind has been disturbed and destroyed; my privacy has been invaded and my right to privacy violated.”

	ESPN ~~also argued~~ that ~~even if it did broadcast~~ the ~~fight, as a matter of law, any~~ broadcast ~~of any sporting event falls under the enumerated exception~~ in the ~~Right~~ of ~~Publicity Act~~.		In March 2009, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan (the case was removed to federal court) granted ESPN’s motion to dismiss the lawsuit. Reagan noted in his March 9 opinion in ''Cummings v. ESPN Classic, Inc.'' that ESPN denied showing the broadcast in the fall of 2007, but that he “assumes as true” what Cummings alleged.

	~~In March 2009~~, ~~U.S. District~~ Judge ~~Michael J.~~ Reagan granted ~~ESPN's~~ motion to dismiss ~~the case~~ because ~~"the~~ complaint does not allege a plausible theory of liability against ESPN." The Illinois Right of Publicity Act contains several exceptions ~~"designed~~ to keep the Act from running afoul of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."		Even so, Judge Reagan granted ESPN’s motion to dismiss, because “the complaint does not allege a plausible theory of liability against ESPN.” The Illinois Right of Publicity Act contains several exceptions “designed to keep the Act from running afoul of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution, which ... protects free speech in a variety of forms.”

	Reagan pointed out that the Illinois law exempts the use of a person’s identity for non-commercial purposes, which includes ~~"any~~ news, public affairs, or sports broadcast."		Reagan pointed out that the Illinois law exempts the use of a person’s identity for non-commercial purposes, which includes “any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast.”

			“Plainly, ESPN’s 2007 showing of the Cummings-Frazier fight would qualify as a ‘sports broadcast’ which the Act identifies as a type of non-commercial use,” Reagan said, adding that even though the “broadcasting of the fight may have caused Cummings to suffer embarrassment,” it did not violate Illinois law.

	== Articles ==		== Articles ==

Boxsoup at 08:54, 30 November 2014

2014-11-30T08:54:09Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 08:54, 30 November 2014
Line 1:		Line 1:
			[[File:Frazier-Cummings.jpg\|right\|frame\|Frazier hits Cummings with a left hook]]
	<fight>17965</fight>		<fight>17965</fight>
	~~[[File:Frazier-Cummings.jpg\|right]]~~
	In June 2008, Floyd "Jumbo" Cummings, serving a life sentence for armed robbery, sued ESPN Classic in an Illinois state court for $50 million. He claimed a telecast of his fight with Joe Frazier that aired in August and September 2007 "exploited his name, identity and personality."		In June 2008, Floyd "Jumbo" Cummings, serving a life sentence for armed robbery, sued ESPN Classic in an Illinois state court for $50 million. He claimed a telecast of his fight with Joe Frazier that aired in August and September 2007 "exploited his name, identity and personality."

Line 14:		Line 15:

	== Articles ==		== Articles ==
	*~~AP, Dec. 3, 1981~~ [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=~~0s8hAAAAIBAJ~~&sjid=~~vp4FAAAAIBAJ~~&pg=~~1595~~%~~2C559997]~~		*[http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YEQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lm0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3214%2C983270 "Smokin' Joe battles to draw in comeback bout" Associated Press, December 4, 1981]
	*AP, ~~Dec.~~ 4, 1981 [http://~~news~~.~~google~~.com/~~newspapers?id=YEQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lm0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3214%2C983270~~]		*[http://www.si.com/vault/1981/12/14/826207/a-sad-show-for-smokeless-joe-after-a-5-12-year-layoff-37-year-old-joe-frazier-returned-to-the-ring-to-fight--please-say-it-isnt-so-joe--jumbo-cummings "A Sad Show For Smokeless Joe" By William Nack, Sports Illustrated, December 14, 1981]
	*~~The Madison St. Clair Record, October 16, 2008~~ [http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/215292-espn-wants-50-million-case-over-smokin-joe-fight-dismissed]		*[http://www.madisonrecord.com/news/215292-espn-wants-50-million-case-over-smokin-joe-fight-dismissed "ESPN wants $50 million case over ‘Smokin’ Joe’ fight dismissed" By Steve Gonzalez, Madison-St. Clair Record, October 16, 2008]
	*~~First Amendment Center, March 16, 2009~~ [http://~~archive~~.firstamendmentcenter.org/~~news~~.~~aspx?id=21364~~]		*[http://www.firstamendmentcenter.org/federal-judge-knocks-out-ex-heavyweight-boxers-legal-claim "Federal judge knocks out ex-heavyweight boxer’s legal claim" By David L. Hudson Jr., First Amendment Center, March 16, 2009]

Boxsoup at 05:40, 8 August 2012

2012-08-08T05:40:19Z

← Older revision		Revision as of 05:40, 8 August 2012
Line 9:		Line 9:
	ESPN also argued that even if it did broadcast the fight, as a matter of law, any broadcast of any sporting event falls under the enumerated exception in the Right of Publicity Act.		ESPN also argued that even if it did broadcast the fight, as a matter of law, any broadcast of any sporting event falls under the enumerated exception in the Right of Publicity Act.

	In March 2009, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan granted ESPN's motion to dismiss the case because ~~“the~~ complaint does not allege a plausible theory of liability against ESPN.” The Illinois Right of Publicity Act contains several exceptions ~~“designed~~ to keep the Act from running afoul of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution.”		In March 2009, U.S. District Judge Michael J. Reagan granted ESPN's motion to dismiss the case because "the complaint does not allege a plausible theory of liability against ESPN." The Illinois Right of Publicity Act contains several exceptions "designed to keep the Act from running afoul of the First Amendment to the United States Constitution."

	Reagan pointed out that the Illinois law exempts the use of a person’s identity for non-commercial purposes, which includes ~~“any~~ news, public affairs, or sports broadcast.”		Reagan pointed out that the Illinois law exempts the use of a person’s identity for non-commercial purposes, which includes "any news, public affairs, or sports broadcast."

	== Articles ==		== Articles ==

Boxsoup at 05:36, 8 August 2012

2012-08-08T05:36:42Z

@@ Line 1: / Line 1: @@
 <fight>17965</fight>
-== Newspaper Articles ==
+Cummings claimed ESPN violated the Right of Publicity Act when it used his name and identity for commercial purposes.
 *AP, Dec. 3, 1981 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0s8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vp4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1595%2C559997]
 *AP, Dec. 4, 1981 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YEQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lm0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3214%2C983270]

Boxing scholar: moved Fight:17965 to Joe Frazier vs. Floyd Cummings

2012-04-16T03:36:31Z

moved Fight:17965 to Joe Frazier vs. Floyd Cummings

← Older revision

Revision as of 03:36, 16 April 2012

Boxing scholar: Newspaper articles

2012-04-15T17:35:54Z

Newspaper articles

New page

<fight>17965</fight>

== Newspaper Articles ==
*AP, Dec. 3, 1981 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=0s8hAAAAIBAJ&sjid=vp4FAAAAIBAJ&pg=1595%2C559997]
*AP, Dec. 4, 1981 [http://news.google.com/newspapers?id=YEQNAAAAIBAJ&sjid=lm0DAAAAIBAJ&pg=3214%2C983270]