Link: Daniel Moore doing a Johnny Manziel print...

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,258
30,841
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
Re: Daniel Moore doing a Johnny Football print

Well, the circle logo and script A are both registered trademarks: http://www.rolltide.com/licensing/pdf/StyleSheet20120213.pdf

I've received two of his prints as gifts but will never support him with my own money.
Yes, you are right too. Which is why I don't understand how the court allowed him to get away with the paintings like the 2008 Iron Bowl.

Just because we only have numerals on the side of our helmet doesn't excuse paintings like that one, or any of them where our Circle A appeared on the jersey.
 

Chukker Veteran

Hall of Fame
Feb 6, 2001
10,587
5,061
287
Re: Daniel Moore doing a Johnny Football print

a and m can always send their storm troopers to protect their logo

Looking at the picture, if they are going to protect the logo, they must keep it in their underwear. I'm not sure I've ever seen a line of guys in uniform all holding their crotch like that.
 

AngryEwok

All-SEC
First Amendment, folks...

Artists, be they writers or painters or sculptors or whatever, do not have to pay a fee in order to exercise their freedom of expression - including depicting the likeness of celebrity.

If you'd like to know more, the case you're looking for is ETW Corps vs. Jireh Publishing.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,501
18,102
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
First Amendment, folks...

Artists, be they writers or painters or sculptors or whatever, do not have to pay a fee in order to exercise their freedom of expression - including depicting the likeness of celebrity.

If you'd like to know more, the case you're looking for is ETW Corps vs. Jireh Publishing.
So they can make money on using copyrighted and trademarked material while others are prohibited from it? This is no different than me just deciding to put an LSU Tigers logo on my product (I live in Louisiana so it would profit me BIG TIME to use LSU on my products) and sell it. I'd get sued faster than Fat Phil could put another doughnut in his mouth.
 

AngryEwok

All-SEC
No, because slapping a logo on a product (such as a coffee mug) suggests endorsement. Simply depicting through one's art something that happens to be trademarked is still a depiction, it is still art and thus protected by the Freedom Of Speech.

What's important, people, is to understand that it doesn't matter how realistic or abstract the depiction is.
 

Clubfitter

Hall of Fame
Feb 21, 2009
6,494
0
55
Meridianville, Al
www.amtrustwebsite.com
First Amendment, folks...

Artists, be they writers or painters or sculptors or whatever, do not have to pay a fee in order to exercise their freedom of expression - including depicting the likeness of celebrity.

If you'd like to know more, the case you're looking for is ETW Corps vs. Jireh Publishing.
Yes. The case was all about First Amendment rights of an artist. Tiger Woods sued University of Alabama Graduate and artist Rick Rush for a painting he did of Tiger. Tiger lost the lawsuit and the appeal. The judge ruled that Tiger's likeness was not a trademark.

Mr Moore's open letters on the case are linked below if you want to read them.

http://newlifeart.com/images/LetterstoWitt.pdf

http://newlifeart.com/awordfromtheartist.htm

The whole things boil down to 1st amendment rights which AngryEwok pointed out above.

These threads always revert to siding with Daniel Moore fighting for his 1st amendment rights or With U of A's Attorneys for trying to say that a picture of an Alabama Football Player is a trademark.

The courts have ruled in favor of Mr Moore and for Rick Rush (the Tiger Woods case). Guess Mr Moore and Mr Rush were right in defending themselves. I guess that means that the Univ of Ala and Tiger Woods was wrong in their beliefs. Case is over.
 

TideEngineer08

TideFans Legend
Jun 9, 2009
36,258
30,841
187
Beautiful Cullman, AL
No, because slapping a logo on a product (such as a coffee mug) suggests endorsement. Simply depicting through one's art something that happens to be trademarked is still a depiction, it is still art and thus protected by the Freedom Of Speech.

What's important, people, is to understand that it doesn't matter how realistic or abstract the depiction is.
Why then, did Mr. Moore pay royalty fees all those years? And why did he continue to pay all other Universities after he quit paying UA?
 

AngryEwok

All-SEC
Yes. The case was all about First Amendment rights of an artist. Tiger Woods sued University of Alabama Graduate and artist Rick Rush for a painting he did of Tiger. Tiger lost the lawsuit and the appeal. The judge ruled that Tiger's likeness was not a trademark.
And we should all thank goodness that a Celebrity's RIGHT OF PUBLICITY does not over-ride our individual FREEDOM OF SPEECH. I cannot go political but consider for yourself what the consequences would be.
 

AngryEwok

All-SEC
Why then, did Mr. Moore pay royalty fees all those years? And why did he continue to pay all other Universities after he quit paying UA?
The royalty was not necessary for him to express his freedom of speech.

I would guess, not knowing Daniel Moore, that he chose to be officially licensed as an artist in order to build his reputation with Alabama art and memorabilia dealers. Dealers like the phrase "Officially Licensed".

I would also guess that eventually, the UA jacked up their "Officially Licensed" sticker on Danny until he could no longer justify the expense that is now, as he is a household name, relatively unnecessary.
 

Bamabuzzard

FB Moderator
Staff member
Aug 15, 2004
30,501
18,102
237
48
Where ever there's BBQ, Bourbon & Football
No, because slapping a logo on a product (such as a coffee mug) suggests endorsement. Simply depicting through one's art something that happens to be trademarked is still a depiction, it is still art and thus protected by the Freedom Of Speech.

What's important, people, is to understand that it doesn't matter how realistic or abstract the depiction is.
Let's be honest. It is a loophole for artist and people who fall into that field. That's all it is. We can split hairs all we want but the logo on a coffee mug doesn't sell because it "suggest ensorsement" by the college. It sells because the popularity of the football team it represents.
 

Clubfitter

Hall of Fame
Feb 21, 2009
6,494
0
55
Meridianville, Al
www.amtrustwebsite.com
Let's be honest. It is a loophole for artist and people who fall into that field. That's all it is. We can split hairs all we want but the logo on a coffee mug doesn't sell because it "suggest ensorsement" by the college. It sells because the popularity of the football team it represents.
Courts, including appellate courts, have ruled. Not sure why there is any question left to answer.
 

AngryEwok

All-SEC
Let's be honest. It is a loophole for artist and people who fall into that field. That's all it is.
Buzzard, I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're a moderator - its your job to restrict our Freedom Of Speech.

(Before you mash the banhammer, I'm joking)

a coffee mug doesn't sell because it "suggest ensorsement" by the college
...well, of course it does. You bought that tacky Alabama coffee mug for a reason, right? You've got plenty of tacky coffee mugs, already, but you wanted this one because it was, you assumed, endorsed by Alabama. Well, little did you know, that crappy coffee mug was bootlegged by a bunch of Somalian pirates. That irritates you, doesn't it? It should. You bought it thinking it was something that it wasn't.

What we're treading into, here, is the argument over merchandise versus artwork. There is a difference. Let's toss out the tacky coffee mugs and talk about artwork... Disregard what is inside the artwork and simply accept that the Freedom of Speech protects it completely. It does. The 6th Circuit ruled and that's it. What is important in these cases, unbeknownst to most folks, is how the artwork is presented. Not the artwork itself. If, on the margins of his lithograph, Daniel Moore places a University Of Alabama logo outside the artwork... he may very well be taken for suggesting endorsement. Big no no! If the margins only feature his signature and a number to indicate the artwork's limited edition... he's done nothing to imply that his artwork is anything but... his artwork.
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,382
67,080
462
crimsonaudio.net
Courts, including appellate courts, have ruled. Not sure why there is any question left to answer.
If that's how we approach these discussions, there' little point in having them.

just because the courts ruled as they did doesn't mean:
1- any of us have to agree or,
2- it's the morally / ethically (potentially even legally) correct decision.
 

Rasputin

Suspended
Apr 15, 2008
5,686
1
0
If that's how we approach these discussions, there' little point in having them.

just because the courts ruled as they did doesn't mean:
1- any of us have to agree or,
2- it's the morally / ethically (potentially even legally) correct decision.
If thought as such, segregation, slavery, etc. would still be the norm.
 

TIDE-HSV

Senior Administrator
Staff member
Oct 13, 1999
84,487
39,557
437
Huntsville, AL,USA
Buzzard, I wouldn't expect you to understand, you're a moderator - its your job to restrict our Freedom Of Speech.

(Before you mash the banhammer, I'm joking)



...well, of course it does. You bought that tacky Alabama coffee mug for a reason, right? You've got plenty of tacky coffee mugs, already, but you wanted this one because it was, you assumed, endorsed by Alabama. Well, little did you know, that crappy coffee mug was bootlegged by a bunch of Somalian pirates. That irritates you, doesn't it? It should. You bought it thinking it was something that it wasn't.

What we're treading into, here, is the argument over merchandise versus artwork. There is a difference. Let's toss out the tacky coffee mugs and talk about artwork... Disregard what is inside the artwork and simply accept that the Freedom of Speech protects it completely. It does. The 6th Circuit ruled and that's it. What is important in these cases, unbeknownst to most folks, is how the artwork is presented. Not the artwork itself. If, on the margins of his lithograph, Daniel Moore places a University Of Alabama logo outside the artwork... he may very well be taken for suggesting endorsement. Big no no! If the margins only feature his signature and a number to indicate the artwork's limited edition... he's done nothing to imply that his artwork is anything but... his artwork.
I don't remember that being the basis of the ruling being that broad, but the 1st Amendment has never held to be absolute. I'll go back and look at the holding...
 

crimsonaudio

Administrator
Staff member
Sep 9, 2002
63,382
67,080
462
crimsonaudio.net
But the law is the law. Legality and morality aren't the same.
Yup, understood. And I agree. But that doesn't mean I agree the law has been correctly decided.

If thought as such, segregation, slavery, etc. would still be the norm.
Of course. I think most would agree those were morally reprehensible issues, despite the fact it took generations for the law to recognize and act on it.
 

Latest threads

TideFans.shop : 2024 Madness!

TideFans.shop - Get YOUR Bama Gear HERE!”></a>
<br />

<!--/ END TideFans.shop & item link \-->
<p style= Purchases made through our TideFans.shop and Amazon.com links may result in a commission being paid to TideFans.