Started By
Message
re: Can somebody from Alabama explain this to me?
Posted on 1/28/12 at 5:57 pm to beatbammer
Posted on 1/28/12 at 5:57 pm to beatbammer
this is a very good explaination
0
Posted on 1/28/12 at 8:27 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Incorrect. As much as I hate the lawsuit against an alumn, it is about precedent. Others could use the fact that the University doesn't exercise same requirements to all vendors.
The University likely couldn't care less about the 3-7% of what Moore makes ($30-70K wld have been University's take on the 2009 paintings). It is about protection from others. They've spent way more in legal fees fighting this than they would have made from Moore. It isn't about Moore. It's about everyone else...as crazy as that sounds.
Exactly.
Suppose a terrible artist started painting Bama sports scenes, awful quality, etc. If Moore was given a pass on his paintings, the school would have a helluva time shutting the bad artists down over licensing. Gotta be consistent in where you draw the line.
Posted on 1/28/12 at 11:11 pm to bamascott2
quote:
"CLC wants the law in black and white and a favorable ruling so they can charge the universities they represent more to go after art work and posters," Heninger said. "They've tightened up a lot on (unlicensed) T-shirts, which is understandable. But art, we've got to fight."
is paint by number really considered art?
quote:
every fan loves his work
pump those brakes
his work is shite and he has the talent of a 7th grade art student
quote:
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.
except that those photographers have to pay the university for the right to take those photos.
This post was edited on 1/28/12 at 11:27 pm
Posted on 1/28/12 at 11:49 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.
So Bama fans buy art the same way they buy Jerseys. Why buy the school authorized one when they are selling them at Walmarks?
Posted on 1/29/12 at 12:01 am to 4nmylifetime
quote:
the photographer/publication he works for owns the rights to an image
Those people are issued press passes for the game. The rights to everything are spelled out on them. Not just any Tom, Dick or Harry can get a media pass. Does the painter just buy a ticket and sit in the stands? If so then these are completely different situations.
If the dude is selling pictures or anything else that depict Alabama Football he should pay the school.
Posted on 1/29/12 at 2:20 pm to bigpapamac
Universities are tightening up these days. I remember HBO doing a story about universities going after high school for making jerseys that are nearly identical. This doesn't surprise me. I didn't read all the posts in the thread, but has Daniel Moore tried to work out a contract with the school. I don't know much about contract law, but couldn't they work out a contract where the school garners a % off of sales. Win win situation.
Posted on 1/29/12 at 6:49 pm to AUCatfish
I like Daniel Moore and own a couple of his prints, but I'm not sure I buy his argument in this case. I've heard him say that his artwork "depicts a historical event" like a journalist. Of course he is making millions off this and the University is just trying to protect the rights to their IP. Moore claims that he should be allowed to use the team's colors and logo if they are "inside the image area" of his paintings. I wonder what he would say if I were an artist and painted a depiction of this "historical event"?
Sure, I could claim I was just trying to sell this print like a journalist wanting to document a famous event in history (i.e. the painting of the famous "Goal Line Stand" painting by Daniel Moore). But, when I started making some big bucks off Daniel Moore's intellectual property then I bet he would hit me with a lawsuit so fast it would make your head spin...
Sure, I could claim I was just trying to sell this print like a journalist wanting to document a famous event in history (i.e. the painting of the famous "Goal Line Stand" painting by Daniel Moore). But, when I started making some big bucks off Daniel Moore's intellectual property then I bet he would hit me with a lawsuit so fast it would make your head spin...
Posted on 1/29/12 at 7:53 pm to bamasgot13
quote:
Incorrect. As much as I hate the lawsuit against an alumn, it is about precedent. Others could use the fact that the University doesn't exercise same requirements to all vendors.
The University likely couldn't care less about the 3-7% of what Moore makes ($30-70K wld have been University's take on the 2009 paintings). It is about protection from others. They've spent way more in legal fees fighting this than they would have made from Moore. It isn't about Moore. It's about everyone else...as crazy as that sounds.
More than any of the answers, this is correct.
Posted on 1/29/12 at 7:55 pm to Smoke Ring
Exactly if you don't control the use of your intellectual property, you will lose the right to profit from it solely
Page 3 of 3
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News