Lawyers of The Rant, I need help understanding verbiage in Jayden’s Cease & Desist letter

My questions are below the images.

Here is the actual C&D letter from his attorney…..





And below are the results of a quick google search that gives a pretty good overview of how copyright laws and NIL intersect….







My question in general is, did LSU violate the NIL agreement?

I ask because in the letter from the attorney, it states basically that according to the agreement with Jayden and the Athletic Department, LSU was only allowed to use his name/ image/ likeness for 180 days post termination or post expiration grace period for continued use of his NIL, which has obviously expired.

However, my confusion comes when you get into the copyright aspect. LSU is the copyright owner since they are the creators. The search seems to admittedly, get into a gray area when it comes to the usage. It states….

quote:

---

While LSU retains basic copyright over the images and videos taken of games played on their property, legal experts note that using a former player's likeness for active commercial endorsement, merchandising, or marketing without active contractual authorization or a valid NIL agreement creates a separate legal gray area.

---

I would assume that up until Jayden found out that the number was given out, that he had given “contractual authorization” since there was never an issue until now.

The very last section of my search states two things. Number 1….

quote:

---

If an athlete attempts to sue a school or network simply for broadcasting or distributing past game footage as standard sports history, federal copyright law typically preempts (overrides) state publicity laws. Courts rule that the broadcast itself is a protected creative work, meaning athletes cannot use NIL laws to censor the historical record of games they played.

---

To me, this means that he has zero rights to any game footage or produced clips or images as LSU is the copyright owner.

But the second part seems to contradict that. This seems like the “gray area” the search mentioned….

quote:

---

However, the moment that historical footage is attached to a jersey sale, advertisement, or paid subscription promo, the boundary shifts back to protecting the player's likeness.

---

My understanding is that this is where it would revert back to that “contractual authorization” that states the user must have authorization from the athlete. Which again, I would assume LSU had since there was never any issue until now.