An Idea Only A Lawyer Could Love: Suing A Sports Team's Top Fan For Commemorative Paintings
from the not-such-a-smart-idea dept
We've seen an awful lot of stories lately concerning sports teams or leagues being overly aggressive in trying to "protect" intellectual property rights -- often concerning content they have no right to. The latest is the case of the University of Alabama suing an alumnus and one of its biggest fans for his commemorative paintings of big moments in University of Alabama football games, claiming trademark infringement. Even some people connected to the university admit that it seems like the type of thing that only a group of lawyers would think is a good idea. The paintings are quite popular and clearly show off a school spirit. The problem (though, it's not clearly spelled out in the article) is probably that the artist in question is selling these paintings and also putting it on merchandise. Sports teams and leagues often like to think they have full control over these things, but it certainly raises some questions about the limits of trademark law as to whether or not they really do. It's difficult to see how the university can claim "damage" from these paintings, which clearly have only helped build up school loyalty and spirit. In an age where viral marketing and "fan" support are increasingly important, it seems like bringing in lawyers with trademark claims is only going to cause more problems than it solves.
Thank you for reading this Techdirt post. With so many things competing for everyone’s attention these days, we really appreciate you giving us your time. We work hard every day to put quality content out there for our community.
Techdirt is one of the few remaining truly independent media outlets. We do not have a giant corporation behind us, and we rely heavily on our community to support us, in an age when advertisers are increasingly uninterested in sponsoring small, independent sites — especially a site like ours that is unwilling to pull punches in its reporting and analysis.
While other websites have resorted to paywalls, registration requirements, and increasingly annoying/intrusive advertising, we have always kept Techdirt open and available to anyone. But in order to continue doing so, we need your support. We offer a variety of ways for our readers to support us, from direct donations to special subscriptions and cool merchandise — and every little bit helps. Thank you.
–The Techdirt Team
Reader Comments
Subscribe: RSS
View by: Time | Thread
State Sponsored Religion
I'll also add that it's a black majority environment here. When I saw a movie yesterday, I was the only white guy in the entire 20-theater cineplex. The Wal-mart a mile from my place has about 80-90% black people. So yeah, all the cars and families I was talking about, I refer to black people.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
p.s.
So much for the greenhouse effect.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
While as a copyright holder myself, I understand how you want some control over your product/content/whatever, but this is ridiculous. Completely unacceptable legal action and any judge that does not throw this type of case out needs to be removed from his bench. Every time a judge allows a case like this to go anywhere, they are making the judicial system a massive part of the problem.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
dorpus....WTF???
That is the correct answer.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Judges
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
My point
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Art vs merchandise
When the artist started putting his work on merchandise, usually the domain of the University, I believe he might have gone too far, especially if the artwork is obviously Alabama football. If I remember correctly, there was a somewhat similar case involving the University of Oklahoma several years ago but I don't have time to look for it right now.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
ah dorpus
he said i made him laugh...he had no sense of the absurd, i assumed. perhaps i was wrong.
what a moron...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: ah dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ah dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re: Re: ah dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Dorpus
I can call you Dorpus right, well no matter. I figured I would take a second to inform you that if you have a gathering of people who seem to dislike you, well then it seems to me that you are worthy of dislike by majority rule. After all, when someone is missing the required skills to reply to the posted topic we usually send them to a class to learn how to comprehend the meaning of English sentence structure. Maybe you should block off some time each day to read what in the hell you are responding to, and if that is too much for you, then have someone else who can read summarize it for you and then post the response. In the mean time, how about you rethink being a "funny guy" to people who are obviously interested in the topic and not your crazy ramblings. People have Myspace for that kind of crap
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Seriously
Do any of these ever get further than threats?
Oh, and Dorpus:...WTF?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
and I also reiterate...DORPUS WTF???? what does a majority of 'black folk' have to with anything in that article? Are you taking your medication?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
However, the artist simply painted an historic event that used the logos and uniforms in a purely descriptive manner and did not stick them in there in a gratuitous fashion -- because in so doing, he might imply that UA was the source of origin or sponsors of the artwork. Instead, he created his own composition of the event in a work of art, and as such, he is the copyright owner of that artwork. It is his IP property. His First Amendment protection in that artwork is not lost because of the "canvas" he decides to print it on, including as he says, even rear end tattoos, if he so chose to do.
A good example of this is that not just the original handwritten or typed manuscript of a novel receives First Amendment protection, but that protection extends to the myriad of commercial forms that manuscript could take: books, magazines, movies, audio tapes, radio broadcasts, online publishing, video games, etc. They would all receive the same protection afforded under the First Amendment as does the original manuscript.
If an artist created a painting of Times Square, and included just the logos that were there at the time, would he/she have to get permission from each of the trademark holders to produce that painting on a mug, art print or some other substrate? I don't think so. I believe that artist could sell the artwork, in any form or fashion, to fans and visitors of Times Square.
The University of Alabama is a state (government) owned school.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I can see...
As these are the individual's creations and are, undoubtedly, helping fans get involved and excited about this game, it can only bring good things to the club.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
dorpus
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
P.S. War Damn Eagle
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
nice game this weekend
Go Dogs!!!
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
The university’s lawyers seemed to take particular offense at Mr. Moore’s use of his paintings on merchandise like coffee mugs and calendars.
In response, Mr. Moore did not hesitate to invoke his own intellectual property rights. “Because I own the copyright,” he said, “it’s my opinion that I can put it on anything I want to. I can put it on a tattoo on someone’s backside.”
In response to teknosapien, I am looking at these paintings and they appear to me to be exact replicas of photographs taken at the game. And Mr.Moore's (the painter in question) arrogance displayed in the quote gives me reason to believe this goes back a ways.
To me, there appears to be no artistic translation, or impression put into the paintings. They're very precise replicas of photos of the game, and I shudder to think that I might side with the lawyers in this case.
Furthermore, dorpus, you ignorant racist idiot, GO AWAY.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Eiffel Tower
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
why
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Clearing the Air...
Dealing now with the case at hand, Alabama has every right to enforce its trademarks if there is a likelihood that consumers might be confused as to the source of the goods. I'm not talking about someone not knowing where they bought it or the name of the artist. What I am referring to is that if consumers might think that the paintings are official Alabama merchandise, the school can protect its mark. In fact, if they don't sue people who appear to be infringing their mark, they could ultimately lose their rights in it and be unable to derive any more revenue from it.
And about the Eiffel tower, it is not trademarked. You can't trademark a building. If a company uses an artist's rendering of it as a mark for their company, that might be a different story...maybe. But painting a recognizable building is not trademark infringement.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil suit, recommended by lawyers
It also validates the first of Plato's dialogues, whose conclusion is "to hire the [lawyer] is to hire a thief."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Civil suit, recommended by lawyers
It also validates the first of Plato's dialogues, whose conclusion is "to hire the [lawyer] is to hire a thief."
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
on the other hand
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I disagree
The universities are the ones that create, train, build, and produce the teams. The things created by the university to promote their teams is the universities itself. I'm not sure what a university is legally classified as, but I am sure it is similar to a corporation.
In this case, a university has a right to protect things that it creates on it's dollar to continue making money on that object/entity.
When even alumni go about taking these logos, themes, etc. and using them for their own means (and I have no doubt this alumnus was profitting from his work) they are infringing on the universities rights.
Does being an alumni give a former student a right to the universities trademarked material? Hardly. The student is in no way shape or form, even as an attending student, automatically authorized the use of copyrighted property on the sole basis of being a student.
Group of lawyers, please. This is a university trying to watch out for it's bottom line, which it has every right to do.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Must have gotten beat up on slashdot
What , did the people of slashdot slap you about so you came back here to post ?
The universities are the ones that create, train, build, and produce the teams.
So then they arn't institutions of higher learning?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Wow...
Upon reading the comments, my first response was "People constantly amaze me by reminding me how stupid they are."
About the former, I definitely agree with preceeding statements that the sale of these items does not at all interfere with the college making money (they are not in the business of selling those items). In fact, they are probably benefitting by the sale of those items (as previously mentioned).
HOWEVER, if the artist did not receive an okay from the university to use its logo, there could be a problem there. They may be going about it the wrong way, but there is potential for that issue.
As for the latter, dorpus' first post is more about what's beyond the text of his response than its actual literal meaning (or at least it makes sense to me that way). And, yes, Americans are suing more now -- because they're lazy and because they can, and because if you could get millions of dollars (or even hundreds of thousands) without doing anything, wouldn't you?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
RE: I wonder why...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Principles in the Philosophy of Dorpus
if you haven't noticed i enjoy the use of "dorpus", i'm still unsure as to what if means, if anything, and where it came from, if anywhere... one day though, i see it as being used as a "name" turned insult. calling someone a dorpus, or there could be a group of dorpii. either way, keep the replies coming...
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I agree
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
I mean, if he went to the games (and possibly even watched them on television) can he not paint what he saw and sell it? It's a moment of his experience.
I mean, it's not like he saw a ferrari, and then started building cars and selling them as ferrari's. He painted moments in time, which as far as I know, isn't illegal.
Does this mean I can't paint pictures of my workplace and sell them, if they include the company logo?
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Re:
After doing more digging on Moore, I found that he painted the Legendary Football Coaches commemorative stamp series, issued by the USPS in 1997. Lo and behold . . . there is Bear Bryant! I see Lombardi with the Green Bay Packers logo:
http://shop.usps.com/webapp/wcs/stores/servlet/ProductDisplay?catalogId=10152&storeId=1 0001&productId=17225&langId=-1&parent_category_rn=13384
[ link to this | view in chronology ]
Daniel Moore
I married an Alabama alumna, and we live in Alabama.
My kids (2.5 and 6) love Alabama and despise Auburn.
There. That should put my comments in perspective.
Several things come to mind immediately.
1. Considering the way the team has played the past few years, and the way things are shaping up for the future, Daniel Moore won't be busy painting great moments in Alabama football for a while.
2. The lawyers are bored because they're not constantly fighting with the NCAA any more.
3. Any money received from damages will go straight to the lawyers.
4. Daniel Moore paintings (I've seen two actual paintings) are absolutely stunning in their detail. I don't know where he gets his source material but one can look at a painting and immediately know it's a Daniel Moore painting.
[ link to this | view in chronology ]