Yes 10:30 AM CST/11:30 AM EST
USA vs. Hungary
www.livebasketball.tv
That’s unfortunate. Had a good time following so far.USA vs. Hungary
Semifinal Elimination Game
10:30am CT
Link to Boxscore
It appears they might be putting the semifinals and final behind a $2.49 paywall (see below). It is unclear to me if they will upload it to YouTube after the fact, for free.
Basketball Streaming Plans – Courtside 1891
Stream basketball and watch live coverage of FIBA Basketball World Cup 2023 and more. Subscribe to Courtside 1891 and watch basketball today!
I do…..however I’m moving back to Iowa City in the morning, so I won’t be keeping eyes on the game.
Going to Kinnick today and never planned on watching today's live. But, was fiddling around at the FIBA website this AM. When I clicked on the YouTube link for the game, it said not available in my country. When I set my NordVPN for India and clicked on the link, it no longer said that.USA vs. Hungary
Semifinal Elimination Game
10:30am CT
Link to Boxscore
It appears they might be putting the semifinals and final behind a $2.49 paywall (see below). It is unclear to me if they will upload it to YouTube after the fact, for free.
Basketball Streaming Plans – Courtside 1891
Stream basketball and watch live coverage of FIBA Basketball World Cup 2023 and more. Subscribe to Courtside 1891 and watch basketball today!
Good question. We’ve had arguably the 2 greatest players in the history of the program back to back. And we’ve made good NCAA runs. Our profile hasn’t been higher since the Final 4 run under Vivian.
Yeah, needs improvement. I feel "Cold in Gold" would be a better catch phrase.
If this is borrowing imagery and likeness from ACDC (which it appears to be), then it could potentially be considered copyright infringement on their brand NIL (unless she is paying for a copyright license).
Not usually my area of law so if there is some lawyer that has better trademark information feel free to correct this guess. I see three possibilities: (1) she is paying royalties (or someone on her behalf); (2) There is insufficient likeness-lightning bolts are pretty generic (e.g. SD Chargers) and not protected; and this one hurts; (3) The ACDC images and iconography have been around long enough to have moved into the public domain.
You make a good point with that second possibility which I also did consider, but it does conjure ACDC in ones mind (and the font type style contributes to that also). I think it could invite a law suit, especially if she were to be very successful with it and/or ACDC really took offense. Whether or not a case could be made is debatable but I believe it would be best to avoid any conflict in the first place.
I think she can actually make a case the design falls under the parody clause of the Trademark Act of 1946. The use of an altered logo and play off Back in Black with Black in Gold can be justified as parody use. And since it's not likely to cause confusion between Caitlin Clark and AC/DC, I doubt that AC/DC would have a case that would hold up in court to collect royalties or to win a case for copyright infringement. Adding to her case is the fact that there is a wide array of merchandise that is already available using a parody of the logo.
