Daniel Moore, the artist beloved by University of Alabama football fans for preserving some of the Crimson Tide's most memorable exploits, won the right to keep painting without having to be licensed by UA.
A federal judge today said in a memorandum opinion that Moore's art does not violate any UA trademark.
Bob Sims: Judge rules artist Daniel Moore needs no University of Alabama license for paintings
Good grief... has it been a good ten days for Daniel Moore or what? First he gets the subject matter for a new painting to make him big bucks, then he gets a federal court to say that he doesn't owe UA a dime for all the money has made over his paintings to date. Christmas came early, eh?
18 days ago
outsidethesidelines
15 comments
0 recs |
Email
PrintComments
I imagine he's made plenty
Would be nice to see him give back to the university with a scholarship or the like
by crbama on Nov 2, 2009 9:25 PM CST via mobile reply actions 0 recs
that’s not entirely fair, ots. what the university insisted was that his representation of the events infringed on their copyright. moore isn’t denying the university anything it is rightfully owed here and the judge’s ruling makes that clear.
so, say, i try to sell you shirt with the alabama logo on it without the university’s permission. i’m infringing on their trademark and probably owe them some moohla. that makes sense. but what if i tried to sell you a picture of a person wearing a shirt adorned with the alabama logo. am i also infringing on their trademark? it would seem ludicrous to think so.
but keep in mind, moore has licensed his prints with the university in the past. part of what he was being sued for was for reissuing previously licensed prints without paying royalties. what the university was seeking was to ensure moore licensed any future paintings as well.
i think this whole mess was a complete fiasco from the start and the university looks completely asinine for pursuing the case. but this isn’t as black and white as it might appear at first glance and the repercussions of the ruling will go much further than just allowing moore to paint cody’s block.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
by kleph on Nov 2, 2009 9:35 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Not disagreeing, mind you...
… but the point I’m making is that this ruling means a lot more $$$ for Daniel Moore.
"Underlying most arguments against the free market is a lack of belief in freedom itself." -- Milton Friedman
by outsidethesidelines on Nov 2, 2009 10:02 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
well, i'm more inclinded to think that what the ruling actually means
is that moore won’t be prohibited from making prints that have proven quite profitable. that’s an important distinction.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
by kleph on Nov 3, 2009 8:08 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
I don't understand . . .
University seems to be just trying to protect their rights. Does the NFL have this kind of protection over its game images?
by M. Johnson Defender on Nov 2, 2009 11:32 PM CST up reply actions 0 recs
try digging up a youtube of dwight clark's catch sometime....
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
by kleph on Nov 3, 2009 8:09 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Daniel Moore is a huge contributor to the history of Alabama football.
I know that one day my walls will be covered in these prints bringing back great memories. I understand the legal argument and hey we have one of the best legal teams in the SEC,(not sure if we should be proud of that) but I think this is one case where the University should turn the other cheek. Can they appeal?
Great Game Hokies! What a battle!
by The Voice of Reason on Nov 3, 2009 8:22 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
I sure hope we dont have to vacate any prints
Great Game Hokies! What a battle!
by The Voice of Reason on Nov 3, 2009 8:23 AM CST reply actions 2 recs
I know it's not exactly the same...
…but it’s interesting seeing all of these cases going on regarding copyright. Of course, there’s the biggest of them all, the Shepard Fairey “Hope poster” case still going too.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 3, 2009 9:18 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
that's very different...
since fairey clearly copied a photograph without the consent of the photographer (and agency) that possessed ownership. moore, if you read the stories concerning the case, takes great pains to point out his use of photographs of these scenes is as “a reference.” is it nitpicky? yes. and that’s why a judge was called in to make a decision.
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
by kleph on Nov 3, 2009 9:31 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
wait… how is that “very different” and “nitpicky” at the same time, he asked?
i’m going to go back to work now…
Roll 'Bama Roll: The Champagne of 'Bama Blogs.
by kleph on Nov 3, 2009 9:34 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
If Moore is using photographs and/or video stills...
…as reference, I don’t see it as terribly different. Sure, the the Fairey image is directly used from a photograph, but I’d also argue that his image is more artistic too.
by Nico2.0 on Nov 3, 2009 11:27 AM CST up reply actions 0 recs
Danny
Hi Guys. I am new to blogging. This is one that involves me. I am one of only two or three artists that are licensed for Bama. When I first got licensed, I found it very difficult finding images that the University would let me do. I almost quit several times. But now I see where it is important for the University to do what it is doing.
After three years of being licensed, I can truly say that I understand why any entity would want to protect it’s brand. On the example of the shirt with the logo on it. That may be an issue of public domain, but how something is marketed is in play. This all started when Rick Rush painted Tiger Woods. Woods sued Rush and Rush won under Public Domain. Rush did not paint any copyrighted logo. One of the problems that the University has now, is how Danny merchandised his work. I think they were OK with the fine art prints, but when he started making mugs and such, they were unhappy. One thing led to another, then we have the lawsuit.
Danny is an old friend of mine. I think he is one of the most principled people out there, and he believes what he is doing is the right thing (as does the judge). But you need to put yourself in the place of any given entity. Danny has done a lot for the University, but would he have been as successful if it were not for the rich tradition of the University? As for the University looking bad, who wouldn’t want to protect their brand? What if Danny or I never came along? Would the University be an unkown school after all the Championships? I don’t think the University needs any artist, for them to be well known. Just look at our ranking this year and last. Bama never needed myself or Danny.
I joke with my clients that because I pay a 10% royalty to Bama. I need to earn 40 million dollars this year to pay Saban’s salary. Did we forget how much the University has spent to garner it’s reputation and place in college football history?
Actually, none of this matters. It’s what the judge says in the end, and no, it is far from over.
Richard Russell
www.allthingsgallery.biz
by Bamaartist on Nov 3, 2009 11:29 AM CST reply actions 0 recs
Same team!
That these two parties could not work out a mutually beneficial agreement without filing suit is extremely disheartening.
While I personally agree with Daniel Moore based on the legal precedents involved in this case, I find it hard to believe that a few concessions could not have been made on either side to resolve the issue.
ROLL TIDE
Lee Corso: How would you describe tailgating at Alabama?
Kirk Herbstreit: Barbecue and Ralph Lauren
by animalcracker on Nov 3, 2009 9:18 PM CST reply actions 0 recs
Join the community and dive in!
Secondary Sidebar
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2009 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
