I'm sorry TM, but I would too. Heck I would paint pictures of ND and Teo's girlfriend if I thought I could get paid to so it.He'd do a fresh cow patty if he thought it would turn a buck.
Last edited:
I'm sorry TM, but I would too. Heck I would paint pictures of ND and Teo's girlfriend if I thought I could get paid to so it.He'd do a fresh cow patty if he thought it would turn a buck.
Texas A&M has a huge, devoted fanbase and this past season has gotten them excited about their program and Manziel in particular. I'm willing to bet that the Manziel piece could very well outsell whatever he's done for Alabama this season. Do not underestimate the pure size of their alumni/fanbase.I bought a framed Daniel Moore print of Tater Tot from when he was at AU for $15.00 and sold it for $50.00. If it was a print of Coach Stallings it would easily brought twice that. Why doesn't he stick to what will sell?
Overly simplified, but he paid royalties to UA for years and then decided he didn't need to (although he continued to pay royalties to other universities). UA decided it had to protect its trademarks (if you don't, you lose them) and sued. From there, the case went off into the esoterica of IP law over "fair use" and the like...I haven't followed his case with the university close at all so I'll ask an out of the loop question. What exactly was or is he doing that the university felt the need to sue him?
Here's one of Teo's girl belowI'm sorry TM, but I would too. Heck I would paint pictures of ND and Teo's girlfriend if I thought I could get paid to so it.
Due to the lawsuit he will probably not have to pay A&M either or any other university from here on out.Overly simplified, but he paid royalties to UA for years and then decided he didn't need to (although he continued to pay royalties to other universities). UA decided it had to protect its trademarks (if you don't, you lose them) and sued. From there, the case went off into the esoterica of IP law over "fair use" and the like...
Around 10 years ago I met Mr. Moore when I purchased a boat he had advertised for sale in the paper. I did not know who he was until we had almost completed the deal. I can say that he came off as one of the finest people I have ever met. He threw in a limited edition "The Sack" paintings after the deal was done. I don't know enough about the lawsuit to judge either side but when it comes to $ we all want to protect what we believe is ours. Whether he is greedy or not I can't say, but I don't believe him to be a piece of poo...That he's a greedy piece of poo.
Wow. I guess the oversimplified question is how can he not owe the university royalties? I googled a lot of his prints and some have the universities script A and one has the entire logo in the background. What was the legal reason the courts determined he didn't?Overly simplified, but he paid royalties to UA for years and then decided he didn't need to (although he continued to pay royalties to other universities). UA decided it had to protect its trademarks (if you don't, you lose them) and sued. From there, the case went off into the esoterica of IP law over "fair use" and the like...
TBF, I didn't really follow the case close enough to know or analyze the finding. Like a bad penny, he'll resurface, so I'll try to read up on it...Wow. I guess the oversimplified question is how can he not owe the university royalties? I googled a lot of his prints and some have the universities script A and one has the entire logo in the background. What was the legal reason the courts determined he didn't?
I am certainly not a lawyer, but from my memory, it came down to the University not being able to claim the iconic numeral helmet and crimson and white uniform as a unique trademark. I remember the plain nature of the uniform being the main reason. I cannot remember when the script A logo started appearing in his paintings - before or after the lawsuit.TBF, I didn't really follow the case close enough to know or analyze the finding. Like a bad penny, he'll resurface, so I'll try to read up on it...
Just a quick search last night of his prints and I found two that had the script A in it and one that had the circular logo in it that specifically mentioned the name "Alabama" in plan view. I'm not sure how he's not liable for paying the college.I am certainly not a lawyer, but from my memory, it came down to the University not being able to claim the iconic numeral helmet and crimson and white uniform as a unique trademark. I remember the plain nature of the uniform being the main reason. I cannot remember when the script A logo started appearing in his paintings - before or after the lawsuit.
My memory may be way off though. I know this board has gone through this discussion before, but what really got me about it all is that he refused to pay Alabama but he paid all the other Universities.
A trademark provides protection to the owner of the mark by ensuring the exclusive right to use it to identify goods or services, or to authorize another to use it in return for payment. The period of protection varies, but a trademark can be renewed indefinitely beyond the time limit on payment of additional fees. Trademark protection is enforced by the courts, which in most systems have the authority to block trademark infringement.
In a larger sense, trademarks promote initiative and enterprise worldwide by rewarding the owners of trademarks with recognition and financial profit. Trademark protection also hinders the efforts of unfair competitors, such as counterfeiters, to use similar distinctive signs to market inferior or different products or services. The system enables people with skill and enterprise to produce and market goods and services in the fairest possible conditions, thereby facilitating international trade.
Do you remember what games those prints were of? Were they before or after all of this lawsuit battle?Just a quick search last night of his prints and I found two that had the script A in it and one that had the circular logo in it that specifically mentioned the name "Alabama" in plan view. I'm not sure how he's not liable for paying the college.
Found this and this opens pandora's box IMO. I thought trademarks and copyrighted material also was protected as far as using the likeness. I know with our business' trademarked logo the paperwork we received back said it protects the likeness of it as well.
http://www.al.com/sports/index.ssf/2012/06/artist_daniel_moore_wins_key_i.html
http://www.thebevelededgeonline.com/images/blowout.gifDo you remember what games those prints were of? Were they before or after all of this lawsuit battle?
I just have this memory of Alabama's plain uniform not passing the court's muster of a trademark. But as I said... it's been a few years ago and I may be wrong.
Yep, that's the one I found when I searched. That was before this was all settled. I don't understand how he got away with that...
This one is after all of this is settled. So, he's in the clear now, right?This recent enough?
(note logo on TJ's jersey)
http://www.thedowntowngallery.com/moore/deathvalleydrive_large.jpg
I'm guessing so, sadly.This one is after all of this is settled. So, he's in the clear now, right?
I think he had to because in many of the paintings the other schools' logo was clearly on the side of their helmets. I know the actual logo is protected from being used. But who knows? I'm just shocked at the outcome.I have some of his prints, which were gifts. He does have fantastic talent. But I'll never purchase his works because of this.
As I said, it was particularly galling to me that he paid the other Universities and also paid UA until he just decided to stop.
Yes I think you are exactly right.I think he had to because in many of the paintings the other schools' logo was clearly on the side of their helmets. I know the actual logo is protected from being used. But who knows? I'm just shocked at the outcome.