Started By
Message
re: Can somebody from Alabama explain this to me?
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:09 pm to Monticello
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:09 pm to Monticello
Not to argue/flame just curious because I don't honestly know......
Who owns the image? If Moore attended the BCS game, and painted that from memory, does the University/ESPN ect actually "own the image"? Or does it fall under Moore's freedom of speech/expression?
Don't they already? I'm not talking about an official Bama shirt, but the crappy ones they sell on game day around campus? They are selling to X fans, who are buying it because it represents their team, even if it doesn't have the Script A or interlocking AU.
Agreed. I think my biggest question for UA is this battle worth the negative PR? Moore is revered among Bama fans, and as Dvls posted earlier, I am sure 99.9% of them are against it.
quote:
As for Daniel Moore, the guy makes millions painting exact replica's of a sporting event and image he does not own.
Who owns the image? If Moore attended the BCS game, and painted that from memory, does the University/ESPN ect actually "own the image"? Or does it fall under Moore's freedom of speech/expression?
quote:
Should any old redneck be able to make Alabama t shirts?
Don't they already? I'm not talking about an official Bama shirt, but the crappy ones they sell on game day around campus? They are selling to X fans, who are buying it because it represents their team, even if it doesn't have the Script A or interlocking AU.
quote:
Moore is just as greedy for not being willing to pay 3% of his millions to the University he uses to make the millions as UA is for demanding what it is entitled to.
Agreed. I think my biggest question for UA is this battle worth the negative PR? Moore is revered among Bama fans, and as Dvls posted earlier, I am sure 99.9% of them are against it.
1
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:11 pm to Monticello
quote:
You would think Penn State, for recruiting purposes, would want as many high schools as possible around the country using their logo.
The bad part about this was the school had submitted their logo several years ago to some kind of "clearinghouse" that makes sure you aren't infringing on someone's copyright, made a few changes and were given the go ahead.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:13 pm to AUCatfish
quote:
"But I'm not going to tell you it doesn't still hurt," he said. "It feels like Dre Kirkpatrick getting hit from behind by the Honey Badger on a cheap shot."
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:26 pm to AUCatfish
I talked to Daniel about this and he told me that it's not just UofA but a whole group of schools that feel their logo is a trademark and can't be used even in a picture of a game. Since newspapers have been publishing pictures of games for eons then he feels his paintings are just pictures of a game like the newspapers use. He also believes his creative part makes it a piece of art and not an infringment on a logo.
He is not mad at UofA and is still a loyal UofA alumni but is just pissed that he has to pay the royalies when he doesn't feel it's due. Other schools have joined the suit to protect their images but since Daniel uses so many UofA images they are the ones most "hurt" by it. If he was doing the same number of LSU or AU then the situation would be the same.
He has spent a lot of money defending his right to create art and the UofA has spent a lot of money to defend their trademark. So in the end only the lawyers will be the winner.
He is not mad at UofA and is still a loyal UofA alumni but is just pissed that he has to pay the royalies when he doesn't feel it's due. Other schools have joined the suit to protect their images but since Daniel uses so many UofA images they are the ones most "hurt" by it. If he was doing the same number of LSU or AU then the situation would be the same.
He has spent a lot of money defending his right to create art and the UofA has spent a lot of money to defend their trademark. So in the end only the lawyers will be the winner.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:28 pm to AUCatfish
quote:
As for Daniel Moore, the guy makes millions painting exact replica's of a sporting event and image he does not own.
Who owns the image? If Moore attended the BCS game, and painted that from memory, does the University/ESPN ect actually "own the image"? Or does it fall under Moore's freedom of speech/expression?
Not sure on this but I belive that in many cases the photographer/publication he works for owns the rights to an image. As was the case for "The Kick" which I believe was from a picture that originally ran in the Birmingham News.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:34 pm to AUCatfish
When you don't have this
and you have a University logo n your work then you are stealing. Because if it wasn't for that, I could print a bunch of T-shirts with the script A and make a bunch of money. Another thing is his artwork has Nike alllllllllllll over it. Bet Nike doesn't like that shite either. Or Under Armor for the AU print as well. I'll tell you another thing too, former players don't like Moore at all because of his lack of respect for likenesses, and wishes he would go through the CLC.(Came from the mouth of a very prominent former player.) At least the University is giving these players an education, but what is Moore doing for the players? Moore is one of the only collegiate artist that does not go through the CLC.
and you have a University logo n your work then you are stealing. Because if it wasn't for that, I could print a bunch of T-shirts with the script A and make a bunch of money. Another thing is his artwork has Nike alllllllllllll over it. Bet Nike doesn't like that shite either. Or Under Armor for the AU print as well. I'll tell you another thing too, former players don't like Moore at all because of his lack of respect for likenesses, and wishes he would go through the CLC.(Came from the mouth of a very prominent former player.) At least the University is giving these players an education, but what is Moore doing for the players? Moore is one of the only collegiate artist that does not go through the CLC.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:45 pm to AUCatfish
no, we can't explain it. every fan loves his work & I just think that the University likes to piss us off sometimes.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:46 pm to BamaFan89
quote:
They're greedy, pure and simple.
Not that simple, really.
If you don't vigorously protect your copyright, you could lose it.
Which is why you see some college suing high schools to stop using their names and trademarks. If you look at one high school and think "aww, its just a high school... we'll let them use it" then the next guy who uses it without your permission will just point to that instance and use it as evidence that your copyrights and trademarks have entered the public domain.
Not saying its pretty or even always fair... but its not always as "simple" as you like to think. Nor is it illogical. There's a very logical reason why schools and professional teams do this.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 1:54 pm to RMFTide
quote:
every fan loves his work
Please speak for yourself. I think he's a thief. I deal with memorabilia all day and I get sick and tried of his BS artwork. Really most of the artist that do Bama stuff. Not a single one of them have a creative bone in their body and use a lot of illustrator and Photoshop to do what they call "art." I would love to actually know how many hours are actually put into the crap that Greg Gamble does.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:10 pm to thatguy1892
quote:
I think he's a thief
why do you care? I agree that there's not a lot of great Alabama artwork but Daniel's is the best that I've found & until I see something better I'm going to keep buying the prints that I like.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:17 pm to AUCatfish
quote:
Search function sucks, Heil Myself
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:24 pm to thatguy1892
yeah that's pretty original 
are they all B&W though? I'd like to see some of his painted work.
are they all B&W though? I'd like to see some of his painted work.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:25 pm to Schwaaz
quote:
So in the end only the lawyers will be the winner.
Imagine that
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:27 pm to DvlsAdvocat
quote:
I think if you polled 10,000 Bama alumni and fans, 99.9% of them would oppose the University pursuing this suit. Its ridiculous.
This.
Daniel Moore's prints are a big reason I am so passionate about Alabama football. I grew up in a house filled with those prints. It was almost like looking up at giant mythological stories told in artwork. I would stare at them for long periods of time, wondering what was going through the heads of each player in the picture.
I noticed every detail, all the rips in the jerseys, the scratches on the helmets, the intense look on the faces of the people on the sidelines. As a five year-old boy, sitting and watching a four hour football game seemed like an eternity, but I never got tired of looking at those pictures.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 2:33 pm to thatguy1892
quote:
BS artwork. Really most of the artist that do Bama stuff. Not a single one of them have a creative bone in their body and use a lot of illustrator and Photoshop to do what they call "art." I would love to actually know how many hours are actually put into the crap that Greg Gamble does.
I agree with this...especially Gamble...his stuff is so obviously ripped straight from a photo that I expect to see Kodak stamped on the back side of it.
Posted on 1/26/12 at 3:02 pm to AUCatfish
quote:
I would be curious to hear from the lawyers on the rant how one can regulate "art"
It has nothing to do with art. It involves copyright material and royalties received by said "rednect Michelangelo"
Posted on 1/26/12 at 3:28 pm to stat19
I don't think the University really wants to settle the suit. They can't give in because it would be a free for all on their brand but they really don't want to bust Daniel Moore for some "art".....have it flair up every so often so they can say they are actively trying to protect their trademarks...some attorneys get a couple of grand for going through the motions, and one day Daniel Moore hangs up his paint brushes and case settled.
Posted on 1/28/12 at 5:47 pm to 4nmylifetime
quote:
Not sure on this but I belive that in many cases the photographer/publication he works for owns the rights to an image. As was the case for "The Kick" which I believe was from a picture that originally ran in the Birmingham News.
Absolutely right. Every photographer on the field (or their employer) owns the rights to any image they make, and they sell physical and digital copies of these images for money every day. No school gets a cut of that money, and there is no difference between the art of the photograph and the art of the drawing.
Page 2 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News