BOL Round Table

Artwork and t-shirts are very different.

I'm speechless.

No no. That's the problem. DM originally approached the university and asked if he could do drawings and what he need to do to get the licensing agreement etc. Well the university brushed him off and basically said "don't worry about it" thinking DM would never be where he is today. Well DM started selling paintings and then became a big hit and the university wanted a piece of the action and DM said eff off you thought I wouldn't make it. The university then said well we never gave our permission to use our logo (even though he originally asked). He said eff off again you thought I wouldn't make it and then they sued.

Basically that's the rough story in a nut shell

Now that is an interesting topic. Currently players CAN'T get fees because it is against NCAA rules. There was a case against EA Games where players were suing because their likeness was used in a game -- pretty analogous to the Moore paintings. Indont know the details but I would imagine that in the future (if not already) that players will have to sign away their rights to TE university in return for their scholly.

At the end of the day though, selling Tshirts is no different from selling Art. Considered trademark infringement if you sell it. Not feasible to have the legal distinction be whether a judge or jury seems it "art" or not.

I do not want you to not share your opinion. I just think you are wrong and you think I am wrong. Don't think either of us will move on this point.

Does BamaFreak need to pay the university for making his screensavers and backgrounds we all enjoy?

As far as I can tell BamaFreak isn't making a "freaking" (pun intended) living off of them... Daniel Moore is...

Does it matter? It is the Universities logo and image. According some above that is the issue right? Can I just make free stuff with the Universities logo on it and give it away?

Look I love BamaFreak's stuff and don't think he should pay UA a dime. Just like I believe Moore doesnt' owe the University a dime. BamaFreak keep on Freak'n and Danny keep on painting.

I agree 'lope. Dude has made a fortune off Alabama. I seriously doubt very many people would buy his painting of "A Day at the Beach". Although it would be very good it doesn't have that Alabama Football signature in it and that's what is being litigated.

I think you are being short sighted here. The argument above is about UA's logo being used. Whether money changes hands or not that is what this argument is about. If it is about anything different then it becomes about money not a logo or brand.

Again I have no problem with Freak. I love his work. I just am using his work as an example.

Haha. The point is that their logo is being used for financial gain. Just like you have to pay the NFL to use old highlights for television shows, or an artist to play their song on any medium. I'm really trying not to be rude, but you don't know what you are talking about.

Legally: It's Alabama's protected logo, and they can determine whether a person can use it and under which circumstances.

Ethically: Daniel Moore is making money from painting actual events involving University personnel, facilities, etc...and UA is also benefitting from having their image circulated...the exposure is probably worth more than any royalties. Since both sides profit, each SHOUL try to work out an equitable arrangement.

Reasonably: Just let it go. Both sides are benefitting from the paintings, it's only a question of how much.