In partnership with CBSSports.com
Online Now 1434
Online now 1547 Record: 9097 (3/2/2012)
The No. 1 'Bama fan community on the Internet
BOL message board for off-topic posts
Tailgating, recipes, cooking, food & drink
Buy, sell or swap tickets
You have no favorite boards.
The most viewed topics.
The most replied to topics.
The most up-voted topics.
The most down-voted topics.
The most up-voted posters.
The most down-voted posters.
The most followed posters.
I'm an artist. Have you ever wondered why we watermark or size limit our work when we show it on the internet? So that people can't steal it, claim it as their own, and make money off of work that I did. Like it or not, even if it's just logos, some designer who was working for the University made that and the school owns it. You can't just go off and steal their work and profit from it.
Didn't UA and Moore both appeal the 2009 decision? Moore appealed the portion that would not allow him to reproduce his paintings on mugs and calendars....and UA appealed the portion opining Moore was not infringing by painting accurate uniforms. Sounds like they both need to compromise and quit wasting money on legal battles. I read UA has spent 1.4 million on this case already. Moore says the championship suite of paintings bought in 1 million prior to overhead/payroll ... Which sounds low to me .
You totally miss my point. I am for the protection of the property rights of the individual or a company or a university who has created something. My point is that the University is a public entity and the use of the football team's image or the creation of an "A" different from the "official A" that the university created is ok. To charge a fee to someone like you for example, is an infringement on your own intellectual rights and property. I understand that some think that the state is almighty and that it can push everyone around for its benefit but you need to reconsider your premise. The university is taking money out of your pocket that it did not earn. Let them create their own art and make all that they want to make off of it, this is just another example of big government trampling over the individual, this time it is you that they are trampling on.
i'll drink to that.
“Although our intellect always longs for clarity and certainty, our nature often finds uncertainty fascinating.” Karl von Clausewitz
The University has created something, its good will and brand image. The University has spent millions on marketing so the script A evokes a certain image in consumers' minds. It has go after every infringer of its mark, because it's the UNIVERSITY'S MARK, not the public's. The University may be a public institution, but it's also a corporation with rights. It has to protect those rights. And if you support the University, you should be glad its collecting licensing fees that go directly into a general scholarship fund, not someone's pocket.
We need the lost art of compromise.
I liked what the first judge did. No to the mugs and calendars, but yes to the prints and paintings. One is very commercialized, one is considered art.
I am on the side of the University. He is, essentially, stealing. There is a licensing agreement in place that he doesn't have. The university has paid more in legal fees to fight this than it would have made off of Moore's work. Point is they can't let him do it without paying fees or others would sue Bama and claim they were offering Moore an unfair competitive advantage.
He shouldn't think just because he is an alumn that the same rules don't apply to him. They do. I LOVE his work, but I also applaud the University for doing what is right and protecting themselves.
That's what's pasa!
247Sports In partnership with CBS Sports