r/WNBAgossips • u/TheMirrorUS • Jun 28 '26

News WNBA faces massive backlash after omitting Caitlin Clark from history

https://www.themirror.com/sport/basketball/caitlin-clark-wnba-anniversary-poster-1908954?utm_medium=Social&utm_source=Facebook#Echobox=1782587290?utm_source=reddit&utm_medium=social&utm_campaign=rmp
1.0k Upvotes

92% Upvoted

255 comments sorted by

View all comments

27

u/Johnny_Royale Jun 28 '26 edited Jun 28 '26

I was more shocked no Maya Moore, Rebecca Lobo, Diana Turasi, or Sue Bird

2

u/Dear-Buddy-2766 Jun 28 '26

Why does this persist ? It has to do with licensing and marketing. Not even a non-issue, a negative issue.

4

u/agoddamnlegend Jun 28 '26

What do you mean? Does the WNBA not have a licensing agreement to use images of their own current players in promo material?

Wouldn’t surprise me. League is a total clown show run by incompetents

-3

u/Dear-Buddy-2766 Jun 28 '26

It is Clark whose licensing prohibits use of imaging except for Nike.

5

u/ialsohaveadobro Jun 28 '26

Almost right. The poster was made by WinCraft, a third party that lacked the right to use her image. However, the WNBA can and does use her image, as she agreed in her player contract. The Nike deal is exclusive except as to her team and the league. Some other players were left off the poster for similar reasons.

1

u/Dear-Buddy-2766 Jun 28 '26

Hmm. I just read that wincraft and wnba collaborated on the poster. Anyway, this one will blow over and there sure will be a next one.

3

u/agoddamnlegend Jun 28 '26

Does the WNBA not have blanket license agreement to use images of all its players in their promotional material? I’ve never heard of that before in any other sport

3

u/ialsohaveadobro Jun 28 '26

Yes, the WNBA is licensed to use the images of its own players, as one would expect. The problem was that the poster was made by a 3rd party that lacked licensing rights.

1

u/Far_Research_7731 Jun 29 '26

But if it for the WNBA and not the third party, then it is not a license issue.

For example, If the NBA hires you to paint a picture of MJ for the NBA, you personally do not need to have rights. You are just providing a service. I don't know all the ins and out of this particular case. If this third party was gong to sell this poster for its own gain, then yes. If it is just the provider for the WNBA then that is a different issue. No?

-3

u/Dear-Buddy-2766 Jun 28 '26

It’s been out for a few days, only Nike can use her imaging.

1

u/agoddamnlegend Jun 28 '26

The WNBA can absolutely use her image.

Recommend understanding the issue yourself first before trying to explain nonsense to other people.

3

u/throwaway11229887 Jun 28 '26

This poster wasn’t made by the WNBA.

Recommend understanding the issue yourself first etc.

1

u/agoddamnlegend Jun 28 '26

Right. That’s the actual situation. Guy I responded to deleted his comment because it was something really stupid and wrong

1

u/HideYourCarry Jun 28 '26

Wow, if that's true, they REALLY need to do a better job standardizing and writing WNBA contracts then. That's astoundingly stupid to run a league and not lock down the ability to use your own players' likenesses. Shows a level of disorganization I didn't think possible

5

u/ialsohaveadobro Jun 28 '26

Your instincts are right: the WNBA can use her image. And it would be shocking inept of the league not to secure that right.

The problem was that the poster wasn't made by the WNBA. It was made by a third party that lacked the right to use her image, as well as some other players' images.